On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:28:33 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > This is meta discussion about an oversimplification. It's basically > correct, but I don't think the emperor is running around nude, even if > that hat is a bit skimpy.
I don't think claiming that contract law has no role in the interpretation of the GPL is an oversimplification -- I think that, coming from the FSF's General Counsel, it's grossly irresponsible. They don't seem to have a shred of precedent to point to, and the FSF refuses inquiry on the point, nor can I find any indication that they are willing to argue, in court or out, the applicability of the GPL to the specifics of any set of facts and governing law. The MySQL affidavit isn't an anomaly -- it's characteristic. With that said, they do an excellent job of preaching to the choir, and the mere threat of preliminary injunction under copyright standards seems to work for them dozens of times a year. The one time the GPL was litigated (note, not by the FSF), the plaintiff won an injunction on trademark anyway. Why expose their reasoning to further scrutiny outside a courtroom? That would just embolden the evil software hoarders to do things that are legally permitted but contrary to the copyleft Manifest Destiny. But the FSF is going to lose a lot of credibility, even with the choir, if they wait until their noses are rubbed in it in the next lawsuit to admit that there isn't any universal "law of license" in the real world after all. Hint: it's not a coincidence that open source companies and foundations with their own lawyers to advise them are fortifying around trademark now. Cheers, - Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]