Locale restriction (RE: GNU GPL and Open Source Definition)

[I.R.Maturana]

<David Johnson>
> There would be a very big problem if we opened up this 
> loophole, and allowed  Open Source Software to have restrictions 
> based on locale. We would get  spurious and frivolous restrictions. 
</David Johnson>

I agree with you. 
Does this loophole introduced in "free" licenses
from historical reasons? I ask this because US was not part of (C) 
Berne Convention until 1989 (or 76, I am not familiar with this point). 
Maybe somebody can explain that the restriction to some locale was 
introduced due to historical context, and are now spurious.
Same comment about the non-sense which forbid to translate the
license itself.

There is another underlying question : should an open-license be
based on some "locale" copyright (even compliant with treaties), 
or should it determine a true contract between individuals ? 
The (c) rights are only needed to enforce the "open" premises.
Once these premises are accepted, the licence becomes a covenant
between author and users.

Under this approach, i understand the difference between OSD and 
non-OSD as an attempt of non-OSD authors to hide the real covenant 
to end-user.
Instead, the parts of an OSD licence accept freely the underlying 
covenant and usualy develop this idea of "public contract". 
Because a contract implies that parts are equal in rights under Laws,
we see a lot of of OSD initiatives closely related to democracy 
and "Social Contract".


Natxo (Is A Name)
[I.R.Maturana -- Trad En>[ES<>FR] - http://www.in3activa.net ]
PLT/LPT License: http://www.in3activa.org/doc/en/LPT-EN.html






--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3