[Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/2/7 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
> 2009/2/7 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
>> 2009/2/7 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
>
>>> There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You
>>> trying to spread FUD here doesn't count.
>
>> There's no question in the US. I'm not convinced by "We believe that
>> licensing updates that do not fundamentally alter the spirit of the
>> license and that are permitted through the license itself are legally
>> valid in all jurisdictions." (the FAQ) I don't hold much stock by
>> "belief", I'd rather here from somebody that actually knows about each
>> jurisdiction (at least, the ones where we have a major presence, every
>> single one would be impractical).
>
>
> Anyone can take any idiot question to court. That doesn't count as a
> reason to assume that there must therefore be a substantive reason to
> believe that the "or later" language doesn't apply. Nor does being
> unable to prove a negative.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Some people have
indicated that certain jurisdictions have laws against "or later"
clauses. Experts in the laws of these jurisdictions should be asked to
determine the truth. That a certain law doesn't exist isn't a
particularly difficult negative to prove (at least, to a reasonable
level of doubt). The idea that you can't prove a negative is a gross
generalisation.