Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG
On 13 Sep 2000, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> It is not. Consider this scenario:
>
> the author of the software might sue A for breach of contract, even
> though A is outside of the jurisdiction of the local laws that he
> broke originally.
>
I think this scenario leads to an very gray area. Where does the author
want to sue him? As I understand law, A broke only the copyright laws of
his "evil" country. (As you said before: International agreements
are not law but are enforced as local laws folliwong this
international standards) (Ecxept when the USA
are involved in it, as they asume the whole planet as their territority).
> That is a possible explanation of what they *thought* they wrote,
> but is not what they *actually* wrote. A much better wording would
> be:
>
> | Licensee takes note that local laws may limit his exercise of the
> | rights granted by this License Agreement. Licensor does not
> | encourage the any activities that are against applicable local
> | law, and assumes no responsibility for any consequence of such
> | actions.
>
I agree such a wording be much more better, but I not agree that the other
is non-free. (But IANL..)
Anyone tried to ask the author to make it clearer, so that there is no
need for an flame-war?
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
(Falls ich auf Mails and diese Mailaddresse nicht mehr antworte, bitte
stattdessen an brl@gmx.de verschicken.)
Reply to: