Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The whole point of choice-of-law is that it doesn't do anything more > > than answer the otherwise uncertain question "whose law governs > > this". > > Or more acurately: 'whose law is used to interpret the meaning of this > license', which basically boils this discussion down to what the > English Law definition of 'illegal' is. Is it 'illegal in the local > jurisdiction' or is it 'acts that are against English Law.' If you're > aware of English case law that says the former rather than the latter, > I'll conceed, but until then, the issue is still open.
But the point is, that if it means something non-free, then removing the choice-of-law provision would still have the result that the license would be non-free in England. So adding a choice-of-law provision can't make something non-free unless it already was without it.
