Re: Distributing GPL software.
On 1/12/06, Yorick Cool <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 02:34:39AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Alexander> Well, I'm in the DE. But in both UK and DE *the Rome Convention on
> Alexander> on the law applicable to contractual obligations* governs its interpretation.
> Alexander> As a contract (properly construed, contrary to its wording and FSF' stance)
> Alexander> GPL is "most closely connected" to Boston. It would be insane to have
> Alexander> different interpretations depending on origin of this or that
> Alexander> contribution (combinations aside for a moment) in works that are open
> Alexander> for
> Alexander> contributions world-wide.
> I hate to feed this particular troll,
That's OK, I'll reply to email@example.com.
> but yopu have just demonstrated
> that not only do you not know squat about copyright law, but also that
> you don't know anything about private international law either. The
"GPL version 2 was constructed only with attention to the details of US law"
-- (c)Free Software Foundation, Inc., 2005.
> is most closely connected to nowhere, it all depends on where the
> parties are, etc.
Yeah. Let's see. How many parties (and from where) do we have in,
> You do know that the FSF is not the only person to
> license under the GPL, right?
That's right (except that the FSF is not a person). But you're dead wrong.