Re: New Sun's documentation license
Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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
> 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?
Python 2.1 has a choice of law clause (Virginia, a UCITA state). It
is also the default python for Debian. Choice of law has never been
interpreted to be unfree.