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

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

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So adding a choice-of-law provision can't make something non-free
> unless it already was without it.

I thought I had made the example fairly clear:

  1. this license is construed according to the laws of england  
  2. You cannot do things that are illegal (in England|your locality)
     with this thing that is licensed.
  3. England outlaws some useage (say, using encryption) which is
     legal in your locality.

If the english law definition of 'illegal' is 'illegal in England' or
'illegal in England or your locality' then this is a useage
restriction. Contrawise, if 'illegal' means only 'illegal in your
locality' it isn't a useage restriction.

I could see it being argued either way... and I'm unaware of case law
saying one way or another. I'd just chaulk it up to a case of bad
license writing (or a license writer who wants to be able to interpret
it both ways.)

Don Armstrong

America was far better suited to be the World's Movie Star. The
world's tequila-addled pro-league bowler. The world's acerbic bi-polar
stand-up comedian. Anything but a somber and tedious nation of
socially responsible centurions.

-- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p122


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: