<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>There quite a few OSI approved licenses (mostly older ones) with choice of law/jurisdiction/venue clauses.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I personally think these clauses are ill-advised, and I could argue that they are indirectly discriminatory (for example, user in Nigeria having to agree that they may be hauled into court in NY State is an impediment that a NY user, or even US user, doesn’t suffer), which is why I think they should generally be disfavored when reviewing and approving licenses going forward. There is, however, quite a bit of precedent on the OSI list going the other way though.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> License-review <license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Eric Schultz<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:16 PM<br><b>To:</b> License submissions for OSI review <license-review@lists.opensource.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] Request - For Approval - Ritchey Permissive License v11<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal><br>There's the much more substantial issue of "What if the lincensor cannot<br>use courts in BC at all." For example, what if the potential licensor<br>lives in a country that Canada has embargoed. It has been the policy of<br>this body that licenses that can be violated by a national embargo are<br>not open-source, because they violate OSD5.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>While I think this is a good principle and strongly support it, it is important to note that a previous version (and possibly latest, I haven't checked) of the Eclipse Public License requires NY State as its choice of jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Eric<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>