Re: RFC: GPL plus securities industry disclaimer suitable for main?
Don Armstrong <email@example.com> writes:
> > The whole point of choice-of-law is that it doesn't do anything more
> > than answer the otherwise uncertain question "whose law governs
> > this".
> Or more acurately: 'whose law is used to interpret the meaning of this
> license', which basically boils this discussion down to what the
> English Law definition of 'illegal' is. Is it 'illegal in the local
> jurisdiction' or is it 'acts that are against English Law.' If you're
> aware of English case law that says the former rather than the latter,
> I'll conceed, but until then, the issue is still open.
But the point is, that if it means something non-free, then removing
the choice-of-law provision would still have the result that the
license would be non-free in England. So adding a choice-of-law
provision can't make something non-free unless it already was without