[License-discuss] MIT License with mandatory arbitration?

[McCoy Smith]

RPL 1.5, which is OSI approved, has an arbitration clause (which is required
to be in Adams County, Colorado -- which for everyone who isn't from
Colorado, is the northeastern suburbs of Denver, including the airport)
https://opensource.org/licenses/RPL-1.5
Old Mozilla did too:
https://opensource.org/licenses/MPL-1.0

Arbitration clauses (as well as specific venue/jurisdiction clauses) are
things I think should be part of the unwritten rules and should not be part
of OSD conformant licenses, as they can discriminate against those who may
not have any nexus with the particular jurisdiction. But there are way too
many OSI approved licenses that break that rule (particularly
venue/jurisdiction clauses).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
> Behalf Of Michael Downey
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 9:17 AM
> To: License-discuss <license-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: [License-discuss] MIT License with mandatory arbitration?
> 
> I ran across something I can't recall seeing before; perhaps someone here
> has thought about it previously -- an MIT license with an additional
clause
> requiring arbitration in a specific venue:
> 
> https://github.com/opengovsg/FormSG/blob/develop/LICENSE.md
> 
> License proliferation aside; would something like this raise any
OSD-related
> (or other) concerns that anyone can imagine?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by
the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
> 
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-
> discuss_lists.opensource.org