Tim Smith wrote: [...] > Basically, in a contract case, specifying the law of jurisdiction Y > essentially just means that the parties are agreeing to Y's rules for > interpreting the contract. I see nothing in that that conflicts with the > GPL.
You grossly underestimate Stallman's and his arch legal beagle Moglen's paranoia and stupidity. ----- Subject: Re: Python 1.6.1 and GPL compatibility From: Eben Moglen <mog...@columbia.edu> To: Guido van Rossum <gu...@digicool.com> Cc: "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bk...@gnu.org>, r...@gnu.org Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:44:11 -0400 (EDT) [...] we need to be worried about Unfreedonia, the jurisdiction that treats the GPL as a nullity, or even worse interprets it to make code unfree. Then anyone can receive a GPL'd program, modify it, and rerelease under a GPL with an Unfeedonian-law-applies clause. We're screwed. So we have never allowed a license with a choice-of-law clause to be treated as fully compatible with GPL. Virginia is the worst of all choices, because that state has passed the UCITA law, which adds a whole new range of risks and burdens in the distribution of free software. ----- ROFL. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
