[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:55:54 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack <> writes:

The FSF and GPL3 tries to pull a fast one by substituting the term "convey" for the term "distribute" as it is used in 17 USC

Some might think it wise to use terms not specific to US law for
 software that will get worldwide propagation.  Please explain
why you seem to disagree.

Attempting to use a license for worldwide "propagation" (presumably
for one vast World Socialist Order) under disparate legal
jurisdictions is the ultimate folly -- it should be called the
General Babel License. Do you have any idea why there are "Choice of
Law" provisions written into contracts?

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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