Re:

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

"Michael K. Edwards" <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> writes:

> At this point, there seem to be quite a
> few people who agree that the FSF's stance ("copyright-based license")
> and the far-from-novel one that you advance ("unilateral license /
> donee beneficiaries") are untenable in the jurisdictions with whose
> law they are to some degree familiar.

You are choosing to post on three different forums.  Having made that
choice, it is your obligation to make your comments relevant to them
all; you cannot post on debian-devel, and then insist that your
interlocutors there read a different list.

Please don't put words into my mouth.  The quotes you give are not my
words; I have not spoken of a "unilateral license / donee
beneficiaries", though you words suggest I have.

You have not explained here (on debian-devel, that is) at all why we
should disgregard the actual success of the license in convincing
reluctant people to comply with its provisions.  Indeed, to date there
is nobody who is willing to risk a lawsuit due to noncompliance with
the GPL when the FSF's compliance folks have come after them.  This in
itself suggests very strongly that those who have money to lose on the
question think the GPL is binding

And you haven't answered my question.  Please explain how the
difference in legal theory here affects the bindingness of the GPL on
those who choose to distribute GPLd software.

>> And finally, for Debian's purposes, it's even more irrelevant.  Our
>> standing policy is that if there is doubt about the force or intention
>> of a license, we err on the side of simply doing what the licensor
>> demands.
>
> Which is great, until you find yourself estopped from arguing
> otherwise in a courtroom.  It matters both what you do and why you say
> you do it.

Please be specific.  Where are we hurting ourselves?  (Or, if we are
not, then why is this relevant?)

Thomas
P