In article <mailman.4863.1250670198.2239.gnu-misc-disc...@gnu.org>, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> wrote:
> On the licenses list at fsf.org, there are several licenses in the > "free but not GPL compatible" list that appear to be incompatible > because they contain a choice of law clause. > > Why would a choice of law clause make a license incompatible with > GPL? > > Because they add additional terms that are not in the GNU GPL. It's additional restrictions that make a license incompatible, not merely additional terms. If the additional terms weren't restrictions, they would be OK. I don't see why choice of law clauses would necessarily be additional restrictions. To me, it seems they are more like definitions. They are telling you that the meaning of the license is interpreted under a particular established law. If the license, when interpreted under that law, does not impose any additional restrictions, why couldn't it be GPL compatible? Note that a choice of law clause doesn't mean that any disputes must be litigated in the courts of the jurisdiction whose law is specified. The courts of one state or country are willing and able to apply the law of another state and country when handling a contract or license case. -- --Tim Smith _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss