Adam J. Richter wrote:
>This came up before with the previous copying permissions
>for Python 2. The Free Software Foundation stated that it believed
>that this sort of "choice of law" restriction would constitute an
>additional restriction prohibited by section 6 of the GPL.
>
I think you misunderstood it. I am merely changing the *existing*
"choice of law" in the original MPL license (which choses California).
"License" is defined above as the MPL, so that term doesn't apply at all
to the [L]GPL.
As for the new license versions, that's a clause that the Linux code
has, too. I don't think that RMS can stand up against that :-).
From Linux COPYING:
> Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
> is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
> v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
>Also, you might want to think about what would happen
>if somebody wanted to comingle a contribution that was covered
>by a similar additional choice of law restriction, but one specifying
>a different choice.
>
I guess that if there are 2 conflicting provisions, the default per law
applies. (That's the case with conflicting ToSes ("AGBs") here in Germany.)
What if there's a problem between a French company and me? I am
relatively happy with our laws - why should I chose the U.S. law?
Ben Bucksch
