[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG

By my argument, it's redundant, not meaningless.  The action which is
illegal voids the contract, both in common law and explicitly by this
particular contract clause.  Basically, it all boils down to: where this
contract fails, ALL contracts fail, and if this is not the case, the
contract is unenforcable since the rule of common law doesn't exist for
this contract to be binding under.  As for Raul's comment about "if the
comment is meaningless, it should be taken out", the same logic works if
you s/meaningless/redundant/, but if restating common law makes a license
non-free, then it should be explicitly stated in the DFSG.  This comes
back to my point about the DFSG either being overbroad or not parsed
explicitly.  If the DFSG is read against the explicit terms of the
license, shouldn't it be read explicitly in its own right?  Since the DFSG
has no explicit demand that a license not refer to the legality/illegality
of the licensee's actions, logically, the same explicit reading that's
being done to the license in question, if it were applied to the DFSG,
should read this license as DFSG free.  

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Raul Miller wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 02:10:52PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> > This has always been a stone in my craw: why should a "keep it
> > legal" clause make it non DFSG free?
> "Keep it legal" is not the clause being discussed.  Instead, it's
> "1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
> forbidden by this license. Any such action is the sole responsibility
> of the person committing the action."
> Now, the question is: is this clause meaningless, or is it not?
> If it doesn't really mean anything, it should just be taken out
> of the license.  Meaningless verbiage doesn't help anyone.
> But I don't think we are ever safe to assume that the language of
> a copyright license is meaningless.  So that means we need to look
> at the cases where it has meaning.
> The cases where this clause would have meaning are cases where
> jurisprudence is ambiguous.  Where local or international laws
> are acknowledged to exist, but would not ordinarily apply.

Galt's sci-fi paradox:  Stormtroopers versus Redshirts to the death.

Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!

Reply to: