Epyrus • Re: Unclear about the License

I don't recall seeing that. I know there are a few third party libraries licensed differently, but the platform and application licenses should not fall under California law, at all. Is that specific to the mail client?

Well, Pale Moon itself has a similar section, but it actually lists Sweden instead of California:

The change was apparently made here:

https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProd ... 09e9ffeab8

Which means that this was changed for Pale Moon at some point, but I never changed it for Epyrus originally because I didn't know it was there in the first place... Mozilla hid it three links deep in a section I didn't look closely at. And my repo apparently had its own aboutRights.dtd.

In my repo, I changed it to Delaware for now while deciding what to do, because I knew for sure California wasn't the right choice, and my Dad seemed to agree Delaware was a better choice, but had no idea at the time what MC had picked for Pale Moon. I haven't done another release yet, though, in part because I'm now thinking about a few key points.

Essentially, should I have this as Sweden like Pale Moon does? And can I even legally pick a jurisdiction outside my own country as my choice-of-law as a US citizen? I know I can pick Delaware or my home state safely, but not sure about any other jurisdiction. I could in theory pick Sweden if I had a company there or a contract with a Swedish company, if I understand the law correctly. But I'm kind of in a bind here because I'm worried if I do pick Sweden, then that might make the contract unenforceable because I don't have legal standing to pick a foreign country as a choice-of-law, but if I can't or don't pick it, then it may accidentally be exposing you to US legal obligations.

It... kinda seems like that one nasty little clause made this go from a simple question of making sure I don't appear to have impersonated Mozilla, to now having unresolved international legal questions surrounding updates and add-ons for Epyrus. Granted, Delaware is much less risky than California by US standards, but I have no idea how any of that compares to Swedish legal protections for a server operator.

The awkward part is realizing I never would have noticed this if someone hadn't come along and told me that I'd missed some stuff buried off in about:license and about:rights while removing Mozilla branding.

There is also the possibility that I'm worrying too much about this and that pretty much all jurisdictions in question would see that we aren't charging any money, that the service is "best effort," and basically throw any attempt to litigate out.