On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Chris Lawrence wrote: > > By this reasoning, for Python 2.0, you'd also have to add a BeOpen & > California clause. And god knows what jurisdiction 2.1 will be under > (I assume it will be owned by the PSF). >
Argh, you're right. Hopefully any future licenses won't include more of these obnoxious clauses. Maybe I'm just going to have to learn Ruby... > I guess I'm still missing how saying "you will interpret this license > under the laws of state X" has any effect on GPLed code. If it > doesn't matter under which state's laws you interpret the GPL, the > choice of state X doesn't matter; if it does matter, then the GPL is > flawed and we have much more serious problems than license > incompatibility. > Indeed. I seem to recall Richard Stallman saying the following: * The GPL is heavily affected by jurisdiciton * The GPL may in fact need to have different flavours for different countries, and may not work at all in some places * This is a major problem for Free software * It is essential to lobby IP-regressive legislatures to protect the feasibility of copyleft -- |> |= -+- |= |> | |- | |- |\ Peter Eckersley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~pde for techno-leftie inspiration, take a look at http://www.computerbank.org.au/
