On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 08:44:21 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote: > This does raise another interesting point: there are laws in some > jurisdictions which mandate the use of certain measures to protect > privacy in certain situations, such as patient medical records. It > would be problematic if this clause was taken as a legal definition in > those cases as well, preventing the use of GPLed software for that > purpose.
Indeed, this clause could really backfire...
> Thus, the above indication of scope might actually be
> necessary, with a sufficiently narrow description of DMCA-like laws.
I don't know if it's at all possible to say something like:
"for the purposes of law $NASTY_LAW this is not a $THING,
but for the purposes of $PRETTY_GOOD_LAW this can indeed be a $THING"
Well, maybe you can say it, but it won't necessarily hold...
This clause looks more and more problematic, each time we review it.
:-(
Wouldn't it better to not have it at all?
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgp8P1HQOoy2L.pgp
Description: PGP signature
