Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Thomas Lord writes:

 > Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > > I've seen the question about separating out the non-license commentary
 > > posed (on the FSB mailing list IIRC) and answered by Richard Stallman.
 > > Richard considers the preamble and other commentary about the
 > > philosophy of the GPL to be an essential part of the license.  I don't
 > > think he would accept a GPL stripped of its advocacy role, even if
 > > aggregated into a COPYING file that also contained an appropriate
 > > polemic.
 > >   
 > 
 > 
 > I think that's a misreading.
 > 
 > I think there's actually a theory of jurisprudence behind the inclusion of
 > the preamble (and a good theory, at that).

I don't think so.  There's no question that intent matters.  However,
the intent that matters is that of the licensor and the licensee.
Thus we have loadable binary modules in Linux, despite the fact that
the author of the license under which Linux is distributed believes
that they are not allowed under the GPL.

 > Basically, a clear *intent* is essential to judging a contract in
 > all but the very least ambiguous aspects.  This contract has to be
 > interpreted across a lot of jurisdictions.  What you call the
 > "polemic" is pretty vital.

Not really.  In the context of enforcing the GPL, the preamble says
that the intent of the restrictions in the license is