Well, the law determines which part of a contract are actually binding; so whether the choice of law clause actually means anything at all, depends on the jurisdiction in which the law is being judged. Having said this, I think your lawyers are right. The choice of law clause is generally horrible. I mean, what does it mean for me, as a non-US citizen? Don't know at all, and that is not good in a legal document.
But what I would ask, in this context, is under what circumstances is your website likely to be affected by the license of Clojure? You are not planning to modify or change Clojure itself, but simply use it. Perhaps, these are grounds to argue that the clauses in EPL are very low risk. Phil rcg <[email protected]> writes: > Again- web site, not distributing or modifying Clojure. I have no expertise > with Open Source Licenses or lawyer-ese jargon. > > These are the specific objections- do they even apply in the context of web > services? > > 1. "This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York". Not > acceptable: The federal government cannot agree to be bound by state law. > > 2. "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any > resulting litigation". Not acceptable: Only DOJ can control litigation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
