Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

[Rahul Dhesi]

Rjack made two ludicrious claims.

First, that the GPL causes promissory estoppel, and as a result, anybody
can copy GPL software as he pleases, with no limitations. I will discuss
this later.

Second, that the GPL, if treated as causing a contract to form, is
unenforceable due to illegality. Let's discuss this below.

Having claimed that the GPL contains illegal terms, Rjack is having a
very, very hard time specifying just what in the GPL is illegal.

He sort of implied that the ilelgality came from antitrust, when he
wrote: "The licensing fees in the GPL are price fixed a no charge to all
third parties." Price-fixing sounds like antitrust, doesn't it?  But
when I probed about this, Rjack denied that he was thinking of
antitrust. OK, let's grant him that.

And just as well, bcause we know there is no antitrust issue.  We know
there isn't because Daniel Wallace, in Rjack style, argued that
repeatedly and lost in court about five times (!) before giving up.

What else is there that could be illegal in the GPL? I can't find
anything.

And neither, you might have notice, can Rjack.

So in his latest posting, his reasoning now essentially is:

  If you can't prove that the GPL is enforceable, then it must be
  illegal.

Two problems here.

First, as a practical matter, the GPL is enforceable, because it's
routinely enforced.

Second, even if it were not, that would not necessarily make it illegal.
Illegality is just one of many possible reasons why a contract (if the
GPL causes a contract to form) might be unenforceable.
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/