X.Net, Inc. License

[Brian Behlendorf]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Karsten M. Self writes:
>  > on Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:19:20PM -0400, John Cowan (cowan at mercury.ccil.org) wrote:
>  > > Matthew C. Weigel scripsit:
>  > >
>  > > > My opinion is that "MIT License with specified jurisdiction" should be
>  > > > approved, as this seems like a valid concern.
>  > >
>  > > It should be noted for the record that such licenses are not GPL-compatible.
>  >
>  > Why?  Because of the "no additional conditions" requirement?
>
> That's the theory.  Given that there's always going to *be* a venue,
> it doesn't seem like a problem to specify which one it is.  However
> RMS says it's a problem, so obviously it's a problem.

IIRC, his issue is that someone may decide to declare the venue in a
country where copyright laws don't allow the GPL to be effectively
enforced.  I don't know of any such country off the top of my head.

	Brian