Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Seth Alan Woolley <seth AT positivism.org>]

On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 10:58:27AM +0100, Arwed von Merkatz wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 02:37:24PM -0800, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:24:10PM +0100, Benoit PAPILLAULT wrote:
> > > Seth Alan Woolley a écrit :
> > > >I would add that the GPL FAQ is not legally binding, either, and the 
> > > >ChangeLog should suffice for what the FSF is getting at.
> > > 
> > > Where do we can seek for a legally binding then? I thought at least 
> > > that 
> > > the GPL FAQ would have been the best place to have some guidelines (if 
> > > it's not legally binding).
> > 
> > The text of the GPL itself is the legally binding part.  Our social 
> > contract is also legally binding.  legal bounds are determined by 
> > guesswork by lawyers and settled in courts with precedents.  The GPL has 
> > not been fully legally tested in judged court decisions, so we're at 
> > "guesswork" stage.
> 
> In germany it has been confirmed to be fully valid by a court order.
> 
> [1] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2004072315554313
> [2] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040725150736471

German law of course has no jurisdiction in the United States, which 
sees to enforce its own interpretation through the use of European law 
enforcement in the past (DVD Jon), despite contrary local law (which 
freed Jon of wrongdoing).

Maybe with their current foreign minister, Germany is not susceptible to 
that problem?  In any case, they still affirmed the GPL text, not an 
unofficial FAQ.

Seth

-- 
Seth Alan Woolley [seth at positivism.org], SPAM/UCE is unauthorized
Key id EF10E21A = 36AD 8A92 8499 8439 E6A8  3724 D437 AF5D EF10 E21A
http://smgl.positivism.org:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xEF10E21A
Security Team Leader Source Mage GNU/Linux http://www.sourcemage.org

Attachment: pgpoqchHTm7EC.pgp
Description: PGP signature