On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:34:00AM -0700, tom wrote:
> <On Tuesday 13 July 2004 01:06 am, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> <> O Martes, 13 de Xullo de 2004 ás 00:56:39 -0700, Sean Kellogg <escribía:
> <> > back to B due to lack of communication facilities. The duty in
> <question
> <> > will be discharged by the court under section 261 provided section
> <263 is
> <>
> <> 95% of the world population does not live in the US.
> <
> <With great respect to the 95% of the world population that does not <live
> <
> <within the US... the great majority of the world does operate under
> <laws
> <derived from the common law system, which is embodied within the
> <restatement
> <of law (there is one for each area of law). Even in the civil law
> <societies
> <(most of continental Europe and Japan) the law has been adopted from <the
>
> Usa is expanding his hegemonic power even in legal system transplant
> through institution as wipo-tripp's, wb,... especially in IP aspects;
> that's true. But -i'm european law student- a legal system is more
> complicated than this. I find such diversity overall in procedure, and
> this diversity sometimes would be able to bring to different solutions in
> differnts countries. Chinees are about 1/2 of world beeings, and apart of
> the lasts overture to free market, i don't really know how USAed is their
> legal system. I think we have to consider this, otherwise i see the
> danger of just-usa-DFSG-free.
That sounds to me like an argument *for* not ignoring "would be bad, but
harmless because legally invaid" license clauses, and for getting them
squared away properly with upstream instead.
The downside is that each time we do this, we'll be hounded by clueless
bystanders who insist that Debian is needlessly splitting hairs, because
the license is obviously "good enough". The terms that violate the DFSG
outside the U.S. are "harmless".
Since a lot of these people also tend to be knee-jerk bashers of everyone
and everything from the U.S., thanks to the actions of the criminals who
has usurped power there[1], they are significantly more frothy than they
were a few years ago.
Hmmm, that gives me an idea for a good counter-argument, if I'm right.
"No, we need to get the license fixed because it's only DFSG-free in the
U.S., where bills are signed into law by George W. Bush." Sadly, I think
this would fail because people aren't actually that rational or consistent.
:)
[1] Disclaimer: I am a U.S. citizen and resident, and consequently
everything I say must be suspected as an argument for occupying Iraq
and/or using the Kyoto Protocol as toilet paper. :-P
--
G. Branden Robinson | I am only good at complaining.
Debian GNU/Linux | You don't want me near your code.
branden@debian.org | -- Dan Jacobson
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature