[License-review] Legacy license suggestion: CDDL 1.1

[Josh Berkus]

On 5/2/25 15:36, Warner, Brian (TS3K) via License-review wrote:
> 2. Section 6.3 is new: "If You assert a patent infringement claim against Participant alleging that the Participant Software directly or indirectly infringes any patent where such claim is resolved (such as by license or settlement) prior to the initiation of patent infringement litigation, then the reasonable value of the licenses granted by such Participant under Sections 2.1 or 2.2 shall be taken into account in determining the amount or value of any payment or license."
> 3. Section 7 is changed to remove the words "LOST PROFITS"
> 4. A choice of venue was added: "NOTICE PURSUANT TO SECTION 9 OF THE COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL)
> The code released under the CDDL shall be governed by the laws of the State of California (excluding conflict-of-law provisions). Any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of California and the state courts of the State of California, with venue lying in Santa Clara County, California."

So, reviewers, I can't see a way in my layman's reading that these 
changes make CDDL 1.1 not OSD-compliant.  Is there something I'm missing 
in the technical meaning of the language?

I know we don't like choice-of-venue clauses, but in the past we've 
ruled that they are not OSD-violating, particularly for legacy licenses.

-- 
-- Josh Berkus
OSI Board Member