Tim Peters wrote: > > [MAL] > > About the GPL issue: as I understood Guido's post, RMS still regards > > the choice of law clause as being incompatible to the GPL > > Yes. Actually, I don't know what RMS really thinks -- his public opinions > on legal issues appear to be echoes of what Eben Moglen tells him. Like his > views or not, Moglen is a tenured law professor But it's his piece of work, isn't it ? He's the one who can change it. > > (heck, doesn't this guy ever think about international trade terms, > > the United Nations Convention on International Sale of Goods > > or local law in one of the 200+ countries where you could deploy > > GPLed software... > > Yes. Strange, then how come he sees the choice of law clause as a problem: without explicitely ruling out the applicability of the UN CISC, this clause is waived by it anyway... at least according to a specialist on software law here in Germany. > > is the GPL only meant for US programmers ?). > > No. Indeed, that's why the GPL is grounded in copyright law, because > copyright law is the most uniform (across countries) body of law we've got. > Most commentary I've seen suggests that the GPL has its *weakest* legal legs > in the US! Huh ? Just an example: in Germany customer rights assure a 6 month warranty on everything you buy or obtain in some other way. Liability is another issue: there are some very unpleasant laws which render most of the "no liability" paragraphs in licenses useless in Germany. Even better: since the license itself is written in English a German party could simply consider the license non-binding, since he or she hasn't agreed to accept contract in foreign languages. France has similar interpretations. > > I am currently rewriting my open source licenses as well and among > > other things I chose to integrate a choice of law clause as well. > > Seeing RMS' view of things, I guess that my license will be regarded > > as incompatible to the GPL > > Yes. > > > which is sad even though I'm in good company... e.g. the Apache > > license, the Zope license, etc. Dual licensing is not possible as > > it would reopen the loop-wholes in the GPL I tried to fix in my > > license. Any idea on how to proceed ? > > You can wait to see how the CNRI license turns out, then copy it if it's > successful; you can approach the FSF directly; you can stop trying to do it > yourself and reuse some license that's already been blessed by the FSF; or > you can give up on GPL compatibility (according to the FSF). I don't see > any other choices. I guess I'll go with the latter. > > Another issue: since Python doesn't link Python scripts, is it > > still true that if one (pure) Python package is covered by the GPL, > > then all other packages needed by that application will also fall > > under GPL ? > > Sorry, couldn't make sense of the question. Just as well, since you should > ask about it on a GNU forum anyway <wink>. Isn't this question (whether the GPL virus applies to byte-code as well) important to Python programmers as well ? Oh well, nevermind... it's still nice to hear that CNRI and RMS have finally made up their minds to render Python GPL-compatible -- whatever this means ;-) -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Company: http://www.egenix.com/ Consulting: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4