Re: choice of law clauses and GPL

[Alexander Terekhov]

Tim Smith wrote:
[...]
> Basically, in a contract case, specifying the law of jurisdiction Y
> essentially just means that the parties are agreeing to Y's rules for
> interpreting the contract. I see nothing in that that conflicts with the
> GPL.

You grossly underestimate Stallman's and his arch legal beagle Moglen's
paranoia and stupidity.

-----
Subject: Re: Python 1.6.1 and GPL compatibility
From: Eben Moglen <moglen@columbia.edu>
To: Guido van Rossum <guido@digicool.com>
Cc: "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@gnu.org>, rms@gnu.org
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:44:11 -0400 (EDT)

[...] we need to be worried about Unfreedonia, the jurisdiction
that treats the GPL as a nullity, or even worse interprets it to make
code unfree.  Then anyone can receive a GPL'd program, modify it, and
rerelease under a GPL with an Unfeedonian-law-applies clause.  We're
screwed.

So we have never allowed a license with a choice-of-law clause to be
treated as fully compatible with GPL.  Virginia is the worst of all
choices, because that state has passed the UCITA law, which adds a
whole new range of risks and burdens in the distribution of free
software.
-----

ROFL.

regards, 
alexander. 

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)