Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> We can agree to disagree, 

You can disagree with the entire US federal judiciary and professional 
lawyers hired to defend FSF and IBM*** all you want. That's apart 
from academic legal community (except Moglen The Bullshit Rapper, of 
course).

-----
"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain 
within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, 
but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the 
license permits."

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

is simply legal nonsense.

======
Here's an email exchange with RMS:

"I assume, however, that at least some people want the GPL to be 
binding--nothing can make it binding except a claim of contract."

http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html

-- the respondent's email address resolves to:
MICHAEL H. DAVIS, (Professor of Law) Cleveland State University. 
Education: Occidental College (B.A.,1967); Hofstra Law School (J.D., 
1975); Harvard Law School (LL.M., 1979).

======
Perhaps further consideration should be given to:

"(A``non-contractual copyright permission'' would be some sort of 
license that does not involve a contract I suppose, but that is not 
a well defined term.)"

http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/diritto/2002-February/000641.html

-- the respondent's email address resolves to:
PETER D. JUNGER
Professor of Law Emeritus
Case Western Reserve University
College: Harvard College, A.B. 1955
Law School: Harvard Law School, LL.B. (magna cum laude) 1958

======
How about this:

"The GPL IS a contract. Calling it a license simply describes the type of 
contract it is."

http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg01522.html

-- the respondent's email address resolves to:
ROD DIXON J.D. LL.M.
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law, 
Camden, New Jersey, Fall 1999 to present.
EDUCATION: LL.M. (with Distinction), Georgetown
University Law Center, 1998. J.D., George Washington
University Law School, 1992. M.A., University of
Pittsburgh, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 1986. B.A.,
University of Pittsburgh, College of Arts and Sciences,
1984.
======

Moglen makes extraordinary claims about the GPL, so why doesn't he come 
forward with the appropriate legal citations? Moglen is a J.D. with a 
Ph.D. in history and not an LL.M. He would not even be accepted as 
qualified for Professorship at many institutions. What qualifies his word 
alone as "legal authority"?
-----

***) REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS 
MACHINES CORPORATION'S REASSERTED MOTION TO DISMISS:

"as is evident from the ProCD case Plaintiff cites, copyrights may be 
licensed by a uniform contract effective against all who choose to use 
it. (Response at 6) (citing ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 
1454 (7th Cir.1996).) The court in ProCD held that  a "shrinkwrap" 
software license, that is, a license that accompanies software limiting 
its use, is an effective contract under the UCC against anyone who 
receives the terms of the license and uses the software. Id. at 1452. 
The court also held that state enforcement of such contracts under the 
UCC would not be preempted by the Copyright Act or 17 U.S.C. § 301. Id. 
The GPL, like the shrinkwrap license in ProCD, is a license applicable 
to anyone who receives its terms and chooses to use it, and by using 
it, accepts the terms under which the software was offered. Id.."

regards,
alexander.