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

[Rahul Dhesi]

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.
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/