[License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.2
Pamela Chestek
pamela at chesteklegal.com
Tue Dec 13 02:30:49 UTC 2022
On 12/11/2022 6:46 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Pamela Chestek dixit:
>
>> On 12/5/2022 2:45 PM, Carlo Piana wrote:
>>> The choice to include a choice-of-law provision is really a no-go for me
> […]
>> Someone recently persuaded me that a choice of law provision is beneficial to
>> the extent it provides certainty. Without it, you have no idea what law might
>> apply and therefore no way to evaluate the risk.
> This is something that will appeal to companies. However, in
> general business with end users, consumer protection normally
> says that the law to be used is that of the end user, if it’s
> not B2B anyway. Isn’t this kinda the same with the licences?
That's not true in the US. As a general rule we don't distinguish
consumer contracts from business-to-business contracts except in special
cases, e.g., lending, insurance, product warranty. Particularly when it
comes to contracts associated with internet transactions (terms of use,
for example) we treat end users really awfully with very little
protection. The choice of law provisions in those are enforceable. But
then it's not really that big a deal for most purposes.
> Whom does OSI wish to protect more, considering both sides may
> be either private individuals or big companies… (no weighing
> from my side, just providing food for thought).
I don't see a choice of law provision as biased in favor of either
individuals or big companies. It's just takes one variable out of the
very complicated equation. How would the existence of the provision (not
the country chosen, but the mechanism itself) favor either type of
licensor? Couldn't it empower the small individual by allowing them to
make a choice in their own favor? Without it, doesn't the private
individual licensor end up not knowing under what country's laws they
might be sued?
>
> And isn’t the Berne Convention already making the country of
> the *recipient* of the licence the binding one anyway? AIUI,
> it states that a work from country A does receive the same
> protections in country B as a native B’s work enjoys. So, for
> licences (as opposed to business contracts), this probably is
> already specified?
The US would apply the law of the place where the infringement occurred.
That could be where the recipient of the license is, but not
necessarily. And on occasion, where the infringement occurred outside
the US, a US court may decide the infringement cause of action applying
the foreign country's laws.
Pam
Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pamela at chesteklegal.com
(919) 800-8033
www.chesteklegal.com
More information about the License-review
mailing list