On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 11:37:33AM +0100, Olive wrote: > Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:01:18PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote: >>> Seriously, does the FSF expect everyone who would modify a GPL-ed work or >>> create a derivative work to read and understand his countries copyright >>> laws? >> >> Ignorance of law is usually no defense in a court of law. >> > > Yes in principle.
There is a reason why I said "usually" :) For example, I know of a recent apellate court decision here in Finland where a defendant was acquitted of criminal charges because he had misunderstood what the law said about his conduct; but there were special circumstances involved. > Although in some countries (for example Belgium); courts > usually interprets contracts as what a "normally educated people will > understand". Of course. Still, I believe the courts will give precedence to definitions in the actual contract text, and the case being discussed here involves a definition in the GPL. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland (IANAL) http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]