Re: Python license and GPL programs
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Chris Lawrence wrote:
>
> By this reasoning, for Python 2.0, you'd also have to add a BeOpen &
> California clause. And god knows what jurisdiction 2.1 will be under
> (I assume it will be owned by the PSF).
>
Argh, you're right. Hopefully any future licenses won't include more
of these obnoxious clauses. Maybe I'm just going to have to learn Ruby...
> I guess I'm still missing how saying "you will interpret this license
> under the laws of state X" has any effect on GPLed code. If it
> doesn't matter under which state's laws you interpret the GPL, the
> choice of state X doesn't matter; if it does matter, then the GPL is
> flawed and we have much more serious problems than license
> incompatibility.
>
Indeed. I seem to recall Richard Stallman saying the following:
* The GPL is heavily affected by jurisdiciton
* The GPL may in fact need to have different flavours for different
countries, and may not work at all in some places
* This is a major problem for Free software
* It is essential to lobby IP-regressive legislatures to protect the
feasibility of copyleft
--
|> |= -+- |= |>
| |- | |- |\
Peter Eckersley
(pde@cs.mu.oz.au)
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~pde
for techno-leftie inspiration, take a look at
http://www.computerbank.org.au/
Reply to: