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

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > > Since we are discussing software that will be propagated
> > > worldwide, it makes no sense to make its license specific to any
> > > one country.
>
> > OK, Rahul -- you win -- write your license in Esperanto.
>
> Clever reductio ad absurdum argument. Funny too.
>
> But it's based on two flawed premises. One, that English is specific to
> one country.
> And two, that the argument was about language in the sense
> of English vs Esperanto, and not in the sense of "convey" vs
> "distribute".
>
> It still doesn't explain why you propose that the US-specific word
> "distribute" as used in 17 USC 106(3) be used in a license that is
> intended to be used worldwide.

I live in a U.S. jurisdiction. I speak US English as my native 
language. The GPL related cases that I have  discussed in this group 
all were filed in U.S. jurisdictions where the courts use US 
English. If you find an example of my commenting on a non-US 
jurisdiction GPL case feel free to post the same. I have frequently 
 posted disclaimers stating the my comments are restricted to laws 
of US jurisdictions.

If you wish to discuss universal, non-US jurisdiction GPL 
"intentions" feel free to do so. For example if you wish to discuss 
the GPL and the words "distribute" and "convey" in British English 
then seek out citizens British jurisdictions.


I will continue to legally interpret the GPL under US copyright law
and confine myself to US English in contract interpretation. I 
reiterate my assertion that:

"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): ..."

Sincerely,
Rjack :)