Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta - Debian

This is a discussion on Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta - Debian ; Hi, Am Montag, 4. Juni 2007 02:45:07 schrieb Wouter Verhelst: > On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 05:09:57PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > What I was trying to show is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

  1. Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

    Hi,

    Am Montag, 4. Juni 2007 02:45:07 schrieb Wouter Verhelst:
    > On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 05:09:57PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
    > > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:


    > What I was trying to show is that the relevance of a copyright case
    > brought against you in a jurisdiction outside of your immediate concern
    > is zero, for all practical matters; that means you can simply ignore it,
    > and nothing Bad will happen. Therefore, I don't think it makes it
    > anything even remotely representing non-freeness.


    You might want to read
    "Abkommen zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und dem Königreich Belgien
    über die gegenseitige Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von gerichtlichen
    Entscheidungen, Schiedssprüchen und öffentlichen Urkunden in Zivil- und
    Handelssachen"

    No idea how it is called in Belgium, but it's the German part of a treaty from
    1958 dealing precisely with that sort of thing. So, it seems extremely likely
    that if I win in Germany in a civil case, I can have this decision executed
    in Belgium. Additionally, you might want to check European law for similar
    agreements (which would mean that the jurisdiction of your immediate concern
    spans > 20 countries).

    Thomas

  2. Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

    Thomas Weber wrote:
    > No idea how it is called in Belgium, but it's the German part of a treaty from
    > 1958 dealing precisely with that sort of thing. So, it seems extremely likely
    > that if I win in Germany in a civil case, I can have this decision executed
    > in Belgium. Additionally, you might want to check European law for similar
    > agreements (which would mean that the jurisdiction of your immediate concern
    > spans > 20 countries).


    Just see EC Regulation 44/2001:
    "A judgment given in a Member State is to be recognised automatically, no
    special proceedings being necessary unless recognition is actually
    contested. A declaration that a foreign judgment is enforceable is to be
    issued after purely formal checks of the documents supplied."
    http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33054.htm

    Most relevant is article 5(1) that says that "in matters relating to a
    contract, [jurisdiction is] in the courts for the place of performance of
    the obligation in question". If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute
    CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the
    copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue
    (mostly) notwithstanding.

    Arnoud

    --
    Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
    Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  3. Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

    On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
    > If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute
    > CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the
    > copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue
    > (mostly) notwithstanding.


    From the summary:

    If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in the Community,
    have concluded a choice of jurisdiction clause * , the agreed court
    will have jurisdiction. The Regulation lays down a number of
    formalities that must be observed in such choice of jurisdiction
    agreements: the agreement must be in writing, or in a form which
    accords with practices which the parties have established between
    themselves or, in international trade or commerce, in a form which
    accords with a usage of which the parties are aware.

    * "Choice of jurisdiction" is a general principle of private
    international law under which the parties to a contract are free to
    designate a court to rule on any disputes even though that court
    might not have had jurisdiction on the basis of the factors
    objectively connecting the contract with a particular place.


    Don Armstrong

    --
    Dropping non-free would set us back at least, what, 300 packages? It'd
    take MONTHS to make up the difference, and meanwhile Debian users will
    be fleeing to SLACKWARE.

    And what about SHAREHOLDER VALUE?
    -- Matt Zimmerman in

    http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu

  4. Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

    Am Montag, 4. Juni 2007 08:51:56 schrieb Arnoud Engelfriet:

    Thanks for finding an english text.

    > Just see EC Regulation 44/2001:
    > "A judgment given in a Member State is to be recognised automatically, no
    > special proceedings being necessary unless recognition is actually
    > contested. A declaration that a foreign judgment is enforceable is to be
    > issued after purely formal checks of the documents supplied."
    > http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33054.htm
    >
    > Most relevant is article 5(1) that says that "in matters relating to a
    > contract, [jurisdiction is] in the courts for the place of performance of
    > the obligation in question". If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute
    > CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the
    > copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue
    > (mostly) notwithstanding.



    What about article 23(1)?
    "If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in a Member State, have
    agreed that a court or the courts of a Member State are to have jurisdiction
    to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection
    with a particular legal relationship, that court or those courts shall have
    jurisdiction."

    But actually, that wasn't my point. I only wanted to show that "I'm living in
    X. If you sue me and win in Y, I just don't care" can be an expensive
    attitude in the EU.

    > Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for
    > myself


    Ups, a professional. I'd better be quiet now

    Thomas



    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  5. Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

    Don Armstrong wrote:
    > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
    > > If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute
    > > CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the
    > > copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue
    > > (mostly) notwithstanding.

    >
    > From the summary:
    >
    > If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in the Community,
    > have concluded a choice of jurisdiction clause * , the agreed court
    > will have jurisdiction.


    True, if it's a EU country. Sorry for that omission. Signing away
    jurisdiction to the US is a lot more difficult.

    Arnoud

    --
    Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
    Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  6. Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

    On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
    > Don Armstrong wrote:
    > > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
    > > > If I'm in the Netherlands and distribute
    > > > CDDL software to a Belgian citizen while violating the CDDL, the
    > > > copyright holder has to come to the Netherlands, choice-of-venue
    > > > (mostly) notwithstanding.

    > >
    > > From the summary:
    > >
    > > If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in the Community,
    > > have concluded a choice of jurisdiction clause * , the agreed court
    > > will have jurisdiction.

    >
    > True, if it's a EU country. Sorry for that omission. Signing away
    > jurisdiction to the US is a lot more difficult.


    I'd have to read the actual clause in the actual law, but the summary
    makes it sound like just one party's existance in the EU makes the
    jurisdiction clause apply.

    In any event, in the instant case (star) germany is the chosen
    jurisdiction.


    Don Armstrong

    --
    EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN
    Don't be teased or humiliated. See their look of surprise when you
    step right up to a urinal and use it with a smile. Get Dr. Mary Evers'
    EQUAL-NOW Adapter (pat. appld. for) -- purse size, fool proof,
    sanitary -- comes in nine lovely, feminine, psychadelic patterns --
    requires no fitting, no prescriptions.
    -- Robert A Heinlein _I Will Fear No Evil_ p470.

    http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread