4 ms·
> If the intent of the treaty were to make copyleft unenforceable, I think the consensus is that is not the intent. The OSIA and Linux Journal concern is the
by jasode 8y ago
> If the intent of the treaty were to make copyleft unenforceable,
I think the consensus is that is not the intent. The OSIA and Linux Journal concern is the unintended alternative interpretation of the text.
- jcranmer 8y agoI explained how SCOTUS would explain what the text means under the guideline of legislative intent (you'd probably arrive at the same conclusion under the principle of plain meaning). Legislative intent is explicitly trying to understand what a law means by understanding what the legislature intended it to mean, so whatever funky definition the OSIA and Linux Journal comes up is completely and totally irrelevant under that standard. I don't know the jurisprudence of Australian law to understand how Australian courts would interpret the text, but I would honestly be surprised if OSIA's purported interpretation were accepted.