X.Net, Inc. License

[M. Drew Streib]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 03:08:37PM -0400, Forrest J Cavalier III wrote:
> > It should be noted for the record that such licenses are not GPL-compatible.
> > 
> 
> When the jurisdictions are different, they are not compatible
> with each other either.  That seems like a problem.

I believe that both of these statements are somewhat misinformed. Parties
are allowed to agree upon a venue for any legal disputes over a contract.
The fact that any given piece of code may contain pieces from multiple
authors isn't the issue. Each author may choose to enforce the protection
of his own code, just as in any other GPL'd program. The copyright for
GPL modifications does not default to the original owner, but is rather
enforceable by the new author.

Venue would be decided by the original copyright for the original code,
and under whatever jurisdiction would handle the contributed code, for
that contributed code.

For GPL'd software with a venue clause, the question is whether or not
that particular clause must also be carried -for the modifications- to
the code. It will of course always apply to the original code. Either
way, modifications would be made in accordance with the wishes of the
original author.

I'm not sure what the problem is here.

-drew

-- 
M. Drew Streib <dtype at dtype.org> | http://dtype.org/
FSG <dtype at freestandards.org>    | Linux International <dtype at li.org>
freedb <dtype at freedb.org>        | SourceForge <dtype at sourceforge.net>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20010806/828d83fa/attachment.sig>