I had a thought while out for lunch. I wonder if this is an attempt by
Corporations to get the thinking of those of us who apply the GPL to
change.
One of the biggest problems Corporations have with most of us in
FLOSS (my opinion of course) is that we don't accept money as an influence to
give them the license terms they want. We stick to our guns on requiring
either:
Don't copy/distribute/modify my work
or
Comply with the
terms and release the source
There are exceptions to the above - but most
of us won't budge.
If some of us bought into the current line of
reasoning and didn't think we could bring a Copyright Claim* - while
having to resort to a breach of contract claim instead.... that could end up
causing some to be convinced they have no choice but to accept money -
and
"might as well give the Corporation the license terms they want while
you're at it because the GPL just doesn't have any teeth! We'll just keep
paying you money and do what we want anyways!"
The alternative is that this
line of reasoning is actually believed by the Corporations. Much like the "GPL
is invalid" thought. If this is the case, sooner or later some Corporation will
bring it in front of a Judge and get a very clear:
Let's say I believe in
your theory.... I sure hope you have another license or you have admitted to
breaching Copyright Law!
* That's quite the laugh... "it's either or... if
it's a breach of contract, Copyright Law simply does not apply"!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
