[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

From: Drazen Kacar
Subject: Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:59:02 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: slrn/ (Debian)

James Carlson wrote:
>  Drazen Kacar <> writes:
> > James Carlson wrote:
> > 
> > That's void under my local copyright law,
>  Perhaps.  I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one.  Particularly
>  so for the ".hr" domain.

Well, the .hr domain has copyright law which is similar to copyright
laws in a large number of Europeean countries. And, of course, they
don't have the same laws. Nor even the same governing principles for the
copyright law.

>  I do note that you've conveniently omitted the preceding sentence
>  which makes it clear that it's to the extent permitted by law.

I have. That was because the agreement specifies USA law, so my sentence
quoted above was meant as an example of a different law, nothing more.

However, there's no court in the USA which would apply something that's
not in the USA copyright law. That was supposed to be the point.

Besides, sententes which say "to the extent permitted by law" in various
contracts, agreements and licenses are there for one purpose only: most
countries have a law which says that the whole contract is void if one
provision is illegal (that is, not permitted by some law in that
particular country). So the contracts, agreements and licenses meant for
international cosumption have a statement which makes the rest of the
contract, agreement or license legal. And that statement is "to the
extent permitted by applicable law" or something to that effect.

That is the default in such matters. I didn't think I had to point out
the defaults.

>  My understanding is that "moral rights" are not necessarily the same
>  as copyrights in all countries, which is why they're called out
>  separately.

I do not follow. As far as I can see, the term copyright, as a "one
right", doesn't mean anything unless you mean it to include all the
rights under the particular copyright law.

>  But if you have a concern here with this or with any
>  other contract language, then you really need competent legal
>  representation.

I don't have a concern with syntax (contract language), I have a concern
with semantics (what it means).

>  Turning to netnews as a way to get legal advice is a questionable
>  tactic.

I wasn't looking for legal advice, I was merly trying to participate in
the discussion.

> > And then:
> > 
> >    This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
> >    California and applicable U.S. Federal law, without application of
> >    choice of law rules.
> > 
> > That, in case one does not live in the State of California, happens to be
> > a pretty large giveaway.
>  Nonsense.  It protects both Sun and the contributor from being dragged
>  to arbitrary third locations to defend themselves.

Dragged by whom? USA is as arbitrary third location from my point of
view. The whole USA, not just California. And I certainly don't want to
be dragged in any USA court. I have nothing against them, but, you know,
there are people who just don't live in the USA.

>  But, again, if you don't understand the language there (legalese is
>  indeed dense stuff), you're best off getting good counsel.

In which country?

>  Anything else -- regarding this license or the GPL or any other legal
>  matter -- is nearly pure guesswork.
>  You wouldn't ask a lawyer to write your code, would you?

Sigh. I asked a lawyer about certain things once, when I needed legal
advice. Two American lawyers, in fact. And they both said, among other
things, "Never give jurisdiction away". And then went on to explain the

 .-.   .-.    Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]