> On Friday 15 June 2007 18:59:14 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > So it's true: the GPL just gives you rights, and without it you have no > > rights (other than fair use ones etc), and blah blah. But the distinction > > between "license" vs "contract" really isn't a very important one in any > > case. > > Er, copyright law is federal, contract law is generally state level? So not > only does contract law vary a lot more by jurisdiction, but it's enforced by > different courts than suits over copyright? (You'll notice the GPL doesn't > say which state law holds sway. If it was a contract this would be kind of > important.) That seems to be a special property of the US legal system. At least I'm not aware of this or a similar distinction in e.g. germany (or most parts of europe AFAIK). Best, Michael -- Technosis GmbH, Geschäftsführer: Michael Gerdau, Tobias Dittmar Sitz Hamburg; HRB 89145 Amtsgericht Hamburg Vote against SPAM - see http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/ Michael Gerdau email: [email protected] GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- References:
- Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
- From: Rob Landley <[email protected]>
- Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
- Prev by Date: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
- Next by Date: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
- Previous by thread: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
- Next by thread: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
- Index(es):
 |