On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 02:41:36PM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > 2008/3/5, Diggory Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > So, I was wondering if it makes the most sense to take a flexible approach > > and > > release under "version 2 or later" of the GPL, albeit allowing problems > > with > > either version of the license to be exploited, or be less flexible and > > release under one version (possibly v2). I don't think compatibility with > > other code's licenses is likely to be a problem either way. > It might be a potential problem to have a GPLv2 only license. In > Spain, for example, the latest intellectual property laws have made > the GPLv2 buggy [1] (or the other way round, the law might be buggy). > GPLv2 says: "Activities other than copying, distribution and > modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its > scope." > In the latest spanish law, distribution now legally means just using a > physical support [2]. Thus, GPLv2 might not be providing permission to > distribute it through non-physical means like the network. The latter > would be public communication instead, not distribution. Rather, it would be "comunicación pública" instead of "distribución". Law translation is a very specialized field; there's a reason that the various translations of the GPL on the FSF website are not legally binding. National laws that redefine existing terms don't help, but if someone extends you a license in English and then sues you in a Spanish court, I can't see any reason why you couldn't argue that "distribution" must be translated as "distribución o comunicación pública" with reference to US law, do you? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
