On Monday 24 April 2006 22:11, Sridhar Dhanapalan <sridhar@dhanapalan.com>
wrote:
> On Monday 24 April 2006 12:59, Avi Miller <avi.miller@squiz.net> wrote:
> > Brendan Scott wrote:
> > > This is my experience:
> >
> > Yeesh. So how should someone chose a licence? Is there any Open Source
> > (OSI approved, yadda, yadda) licence that makes legal sense in
> > Australia? Without spending lots and lots on money paying for Brendan's
> > time, how does any commercial entity decide which licence makes the most
> > sense for their business needs?
>
> General disclaimer: IANAL
>
> This is indeed a problem. Most licences are made with the United States in
> mind. The MPL, for example, is based on Californian state law. Licences
> like this might not be as binding in other countries, depending on their
> legal systems.
I should add that this is a stated reason for why version 3 of the GPL has
been such a long time in coming. The FSF are trying to word things in such a
way that it is unambiguously legally binding in as many countries as
possible, even after translation into local languages.
--
Sridhar Dhanapalan [Yama | http://www.pclinuxonline.com/]
{GnuPG/OpenPGP: http://dhanapalan.webhop.net/yama.asc
0x049D38B4 : A7A9 8A02 78CB AB1B FCE4 EEC6 2DD9 249B 049D 38B4}
"Microsoft's operating system is what has led to our loss of control over
computing. The system is so complicated and so burdened with the legacy of
its past that it has become unusable by mere mortals, or even by geeks like
me." - Stewart Alsop, Fortune Magazine
Attachment:
pgpkOB7v1usUZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature