On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Karsten M. Self writes:
> > on Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:19:20PM -0400, John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>wrote:
> > > Matthew C. Weigel scripsit:
> > >
> > > > My opinion is that "MIT License with specified jurisdiction" should be
> > > > approved, as this seems like a valid concern.
> > >
> > > It should be noted for the record that such licenses are not GPL-compatible.
> >
> > Why? Because of the "no additional conditions" requirement?
>
> That's the theory. Given that there's always going to *be* a venue,
> it doesn't seem like a problem to specify which one it is. However
> RMS says it's a problem, so obviously it's a problem.
IIRC, his issue is that someone may decide to declare the venue in a
country where copyright laws don't allow the GPL to be effectively
enforced. I don't know of any such country off the top of my head.
Brian
