On 1/12/06, Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 02:34:39AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Alexander> > Alexander> Well, I'm in the DE. But in both UK and DE *the Rome Convention on > Alexander> on the law applicable to contractual obligations* governs its > interpretation. > Alexander> As a contract (properly construed, contrary to its wording and > FSF' stance) > Alexander> GPL is "most closely connected" to Boston. It would be insane to > have > Alexander> different interpretations depending on origin of this or that > Alexander> contribution (combinations aside for a moment) in works that are > open > Alexander> for > Alexander> contributions world-wide. > Alexander> > > > I hate to feed this particular troll,
That's OK, I'll reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > but yopu have just demonstrated > that not only do you not know squat about copyright law, but also that > you don't know anything about private international law either. The > GPL "GPL version 2 was constructed only with attention to the details of US law" -- (c)Free Software Foundation, Inc., 2005. > is most closely connected to nowhere, it all depends on where the > parties are, etc. Yeah. Let's see. How many parties (and from where) do we have in, say, linux? > You do know that the FSF is not the only person to > license under the GPL, right? That's right (except that the FSF is not a person). But you're dead wrong. regards, alexander.
