Hyman Rosen wrote:
"The answer, I suspect, is that the Free Software Foundation is not
accepting compliance with the GPL as a solution. It wants more. It
wants to push Cisco around and it wants money. Here's how it thinks it
can do that." The Software Lawyer
If the only consequence of being caught out of compliance is
to comply, then no one will be careful to properly comply from
the start.
The only consequence of being caught out of compliance is to receive
a scathing, withering and punitive Rule 41(A) Voluntary Dismissal by
the FSF. Scathing, withering and punitive because we have to listen
to the unverifiable bullshit propaganda about what the FSF allegedly
won.
The FSF will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow a lawsuit to proceed to the
point where a federal judge will ever actually evaluate the GPL's
sec. 2(b) on the merits:
"20. Under the Licenses, Plaintiffs grant certain permissions to
other parties to copy, modify and redistribute the programs so long
as those parties satisfy certain conditions. In particular,
Section 2(b) of the GPL, addressing each licensee, states:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License."
This particular contractual covenant is total legal gibberish. In
the Second Circuit, the district courts know full well the
difference between a contractual covenant, a contractual condition
precedent and a delimiting scope of use restriction in a copyright
license. A district court judge would stuff the GPL's sec. 2(b) up
Eben Moglen's propagandistic butt.
Sincerely,
Rjack
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
