On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:37:17AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > I think that we are going to see more and more cases of GPL "incompatibilities" > as time goes on. Agreed; although market forces are driving many software development houses towards "Open Source", they're still trying to squirm out of making things free software. > I am disappointed that RMS is fighting over something as trivial as a > company asking that legal issues be settled in their home state > (country). This is common practice. I don't think it's trivial at all. Consider that UCITA is the law of the land in Virginia, which is where CNRI are trying to corral all interpretation of the Python license. If contracts are to be interpreted only by adjudicators that have already been bought by (or otherwise have some bias in favor of) one of the parties, then what you have is a letter of extortion, not a contract. On a far more pragmatic level, it may be impossible for citizens of the state of Iowa to become Python licensees under the terms CNRI and BeOpen have in mind, depending on the details of UCITA and the anti-UCITA measures passed by the Iowa state legislature. <http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO49486,00.html> -- G. Branden Robinson | Murphy's Guide to Science: Debian GNU/Linux | If it's green or squirms, it's biology. branden@debian.org | If it stinks, it's chemistry. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | If it doesn't work, it's physics.
Attachment:
pgpDZFcwXaJuG.pgp
Description: PGP signature