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

Re: GPL v2/v3 ?

On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 02:41:36PM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2008/3/5, Diggory Hardy <diggory.hardy@gmail.com>:

> >  So, I was wondering if it makes the most sense to take a flexible approach and
> >  release under "version 2 or later" of the GPL, albeit allowing problems with
> >  either version of the license to be exploited, or be less flexible and
> >  release under one version (possibly v2). I don't think compatibility with
> >  other code's licenses is likely to be a problem either way.

> It might be a potential problem to have a GPLv2 only license. In
> Spain, for example, the latest intellectual property laws have made
> the GPLv2 buggy [1] (or the other way round, the law might be buggy).

> GPLv2 says: "Activities other than copying, distribution and
> modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its
> scope."

> In the latest spanish law, distribution now legally means just using a
> physical support [2]. Thus, GPLv2 might not be providing permission to
> distribute it through non-physical means like the network. The latter
> would be public communication instead, not distribution.

Rather, it would be "comunicación pública" instead of "distribución".

Law translation is a very specialized field; there's a reason that the
various translations of the GPL on the FSF website are not legally binding.
National laws that redefine existing terms don't help, but if someone
extends you a license in English and then sues you in a Spanish court, I
can't see any reason why you couldn't argue that "distribution" must be
translated as "distribución o comunicación pública" with reference to US
law, do you?

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Reply to: