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

Re: RFC: GPL plus securities industry disclaimer suitable for main?

Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.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

Reply to: