Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > The FSF and GPL3 tries to pull a fast one by substituting the 
> > term "convey" for the term "distribute" as it is used in 17 USC
> >  106(3)...
>
> Some might think it wise to use terms not specific to US law for
>  software that will get worldwide propagation.  Please explain
> why you seem to disagree.

Attempting to use a license for worldwide "propagation" (presumably
for one vast World Socialist Order) under disparate legal
jurisdictions is the ultimate folly -- it should be called the
General Babel License. Do you have any idea why there are "Choice of
Law" provisions written into contracts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_of_law_clause

Sincerely,
Rjack :)