On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 07:20:14AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > In fact, it is a rather nice license, much better than the GFDL. It > is basically a copyleft for documents. It doesn't have the > endorsements or exemptions for small scale copying that many seem to > want. The only thing that gives me pause is the choice of law clause > in section 10. That doesn't make it non-free, though. It could be argued that it violates DFSG 5 by de facto imposing further restrictions (those contained in U.S. federal and state law) on certain parties. Some U.S. federal regulations are in fact violative of software freedom; the DMCA, crypto regulations, and patents spring to mind. How would U.S. developers like it if a free software author in a country that bans encryption entirely distributed a software product under a DFSG-free license, but with a choice-of-law clause? -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | If ignorance is bliss, branden@debian.org | is omniscience hell? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpU3AYwn0QqX.pgp
Description: PGP signature