The questions concerning enforceability of the provisions in the GPL will occur in the federal courts according to prevailing law. (I do not consider non-US jurisdictions.) Arguments concerning enforceability should be grounded in references to prevailing federal statutes and case law concerning the licensing of intellectual property.
Eben Moglen and his FOSS devotees generate reams of blog publications and manifestos concerning the GPL and software code. There is a glaring deficiency to these claims: any reference to prevailing federal law supporting their assertions. The FOSS strategy is one great GPL propaganda effort. All blow and no go. We see dotCommunist Manifestos, celebrated conferences drafting a new GPL license and a "A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance". Nowhere do we see any reference to prevailing license law in support of their wild claims. Professor Eben Moglen styles himself a leading expert in licensing law. Here is a major work published by Eben Moglen: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html * * * * * * * * Enforcing the GNU GPL * * * * * * * * . . . This right to exclude implies an equally large power to license—that is, to grant permission to do what would otherwise be forbidden. Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Beautiful legal propaganda. The whole legal theory underpinning the GPL and "copyleft" is based on the theory that a copyright license is not a contract. Google { license "not a contract" }. I got 1,440,000 hits. How's that for propaganda? Since 1927 when the United States Supreme Court declared a license was in fact a contract, no federal court has ever ruled to the contrary, see De Forest Radio Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236 (1927). This fact is no surprise: "[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be."; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982) So why does anyone who has read "Enforcing the GPL" believe in the GPL when the theory underlying the GPL is demonstratively false? Self deception? I believe people should be able to evaluate both sides of a claim. I have read posters who complain that I repetitively post my claims on different blogs. But 1,440,000 times? Sincerely, Rjack :) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
