>From: Ben Bucksch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>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.
That is not a choice of law requirement. It is just a
statement that the option discussed in section 9 paragraph 2 of
the GPL is not being exercised.
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 4880 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 104
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / San Jose, California 95129-1034
+1 408 261-6630 | g g d r a s i l United States of America
fax +1 408 261-6631 "Free Software For The Rest Of Us."
