Re: [tlug] Bill Gates and the GPL , let the flames begin

[Attila Kinali <attila@example.com>]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:14:24 +0900
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com> wrote:

> Attila Kinali writes:
> 
>  > The GPLv2 is IMHO because of its simpler wording
>  > better fit for international application than GPLv3.
>  > Beside, a lot of things in the GPLv3 sound very US centric,
>  > while there were only a few in GPLv2.
> 
> Interesting point, although some argue that the U.S. has been trying
> to bully Europe into making the same mistakes (eg, DMCA and software
> patents), 

Yes, unfortunately. But the resistance is growing. And Switzerland
continues to have one of the most relaxed copyright and patent
laws in the western hemisphere. Although quite a few countries
in europe adopted a lot stricter copyright laws in the last years,
the rulings aren't yet that strict. And the behaviour of the IFPI
and Microsoft caused a lot of very relaxed interpretations of the law.

> and therefore the GPLv3's attempts to counteract U.S. law
> are internationally applicable; only the wording needs more care in
> international context.  Also, the Europeans I know who actually care
> (mostly Emacs developers) seem to accept the FSF's claim that v3 is
> better internationalized.

Hmm.. could be. GPLv3 always leaves a bad aftertaste of
"there is something i didn't quite understand, but what is it?"
after reading. So, it can very well be that the text is better,
i don't know. Beside: IANAL (especialy not in international law)

>  > Just try to explain to the judge what all those different
>  > sections actually mean if you don't understand them yourself.
> 
> Actually, in the U.S. system explaining what the sections mean
> *legally* is what the courts do for us.  (For the technical stuff, of
> course you call "expert witnesses".)

Here in Switzerland (i don't know much about how legal stuff is handled
in the rest of europe in detail) a law has to be precise and clear
to begin with. Otherwise people will object its adoption. In some
cases (like with the new copyright law), there is an explenation
submitted _together_ with the law, explaining how it should be
read. The courts have only a limited competence to interpret
each item, but are mostly used to interpret the correct meaning
into the combination of all different items that apply.


> The problem is that if you don't understand what the sections mean,
> the judge will very likely explain them in these terms: "You lose!"
> Oops.

Here they normaly rule in favor of the one with more political
influence :-(

			Attila Kinali

-- 
Praised are the Fountains of Shelieth, the silver harp of the waters,
But blest in my name forever this stream that stanched my thirst!
                         -- Deed of Morred