Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 07:20:14AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > > In fact, it is a rather nice license, much better than the GFDL. It > > is basically a copyleft for documents. It doesn't have the > > endorsements or exemptions for small scale copying that many seem to > > want. The only thing that gives me pause is the choice of law clause > > in section 10. That doesn't make it non-free, though. > > It could be argued that it violates DFSG 5 by de facto imposing further > restrictions (those contained in U.S. federal and state law) on certain > parties. Some U.S. federal regulations are in fact violative of > software freedom; the DMCA, crypto regulations, and patents spring to > mind. > > How would U.S. developers like it if a free software author in a country > that bans encryption entirely distributed a software product under a > DFSG-free license, but with a choice-of-law clause?
Python 2.1 has a choice of law clause (Virginia, a UCITA state). It is also the default python for Debian. Choice of law has never been interpreted to be unfree. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
