The GPL is the way to go

[rjack]

First:
"Eben Moglen: Yeh, I also make lawyers, I teach something called "Law
and The Information Society", I'm not too keen on "cyberspace". I'm the
general counsel of the Free Software Foundation, and I'm trying to
report on the revolution which is destroying intellectual property. Of
which I am entirely in favour."
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/texts/eben-moglen-dmca-and-you.html

Next:
"As for Novell, the charge is rather simple. The agreement violates GPL
2. It certainly does so in spirit if not the letter. But, I think a case
can easily be made that it also violates the letter. . .

But, what tort has Microsoft committed? And does it matter that Novell
apparently called them first? At the present time “intentional
interference with contractual relations” comes to mind. . .

Now it would appear that the FSF (Free Software Foundation) as holders
of many of the copyrights relating to the Linux kernel and other
applications has decided not to pursue legal redress against Novell or
even Microsoft. Or, at least that is the current position. That may
change however."
http://lamlaw.com/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=23


How can an esteemed professor of law (Moglen) who favors the
"destruction" of intellectual property pass up the opportunity for legal
redress against Novell or Microsoft thereby demonstrating to the world
that the GPL is the way to accomplish a goal?

Could it be possible that Moglen does *not* wish court scrutiny of the
GPL under copyright and contract law?
1) Perhaps the is GPL is unenforcable under contract law.
2) Perhaps the GPL is preempted under 17 USC sec. 301.
3) Perhaps the GPL is a misuse of copyright.

One things seems certain. Moglen is obviously in no hurry to find out.

Three guarantees in life:
1) Death.
2) Taxes.
3) Pigs will fly before the Free Software Foundation ever files to 
enforce the mighty GPL in a U.S. court.