On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 23:55 +0100, Jeffrey Ian Dy wrote: > > The effect therefore of Section 6 are: (1) FOSS licenses will be > recognized as such, a contract *and* a license, failure to abide by > the agreement nulls and voids anything you did with it nor its > byproducts, (2) since FOSS will be recognized in Philippine law, > jurisprudence on FOSS on other countries as well as interpretation of > it by other respected collegial bodies becomes legally guiding and in > the long run, binding, (3) breach of FOSS licenses now becomes a > subject of civil suit, and (4) as in enumeration (2), any juridical > body's interpretation of FOSS is guided by the bill's defintion of > FOSS (which granted its recognition in the first place). > > There's a catch (there always is) for a FOSS contract / license to be > legally recognized, it *must* conform with the bill's definition of > FOSS.
I do think that in the absence of any contesting fact, the default is to consult American jurisprudence. -- Paolo Alexis Falcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
