On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:56:53 -0400, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 02:35:05PM -0700, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: > > As well, the fact that is is framed as a "license agreement" invokes > > contract law instead of pure copyright... in the U.S., contract law is > > different in every state and some even have gap-filling measures > > which, in a court of law, would add things to the license that even > > the licensor didn't intend (choice of venue changes this, but choice > > of venue provisions are about as non-free as it gets). > > Well, I think choice of venue is non-free, but I don't think it's quite > that severe. "Send me $10 for every copy made" and "no redistribution > or modification of any kind" are restrictions I'd call "as non-free as > it gets"; it's somewhat of an exaggeration to put choice of venue on > that level.
I wouldn't call it an exaggeration in the sense that they are binding anyone in the world who licenses their code to a law and jurisprudence in one state in the US. Anyway, it's clear that it is not-free... we could debate the degree of non-freeness of each part ad infinitum. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall
