X.Net, Inc. License

[M. Drew Streib]

On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
> My opinion is that "MIT License with specified jurisdiction" should be
> approved, as this seems like a valid concern.

Specified jurisdictions are extremely common, and imo do not conflict
with the intent of this contract. They merely provide some legal context
for the contract.

This potentially makes this license easier for the owner to defend if
it should be violated in some way, as the jurisdiction was likely chosen
with the expertise of his own lawyers in mind.

A chosen jurisdiction is no reason not to allow this, though.

-drew

-- 
M. Drew Streib <dtype at dtype.org> | http://dtype.org/
FSG <dtype at freestandards.org>    | Linux International <dtype at li.org>
freedb <dtype at freedb.org>        | SourceForge <dtype at sourceforge.net>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20010806/3aec5611/attachment.sig>