Re: the GPL is a license not a contract ..

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> The court didn't rule regarding validity of the GPL provisions.

<http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf>
                              ...Affidavits submitted by the parties’
    experts raise a factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini
    program is a derivative or an independent and separate work under
    GPL ¶ 2. After hearing, MySQL seems to have the better argument
    here, but the matter is one of fair dispute. Moreover, I am not
    persuaded based on this record that the release of the Gemini
    source code in July 2001 didn’t cure the breach.

It is perfectly clear from this paragraph that the judge regards the
GPL as legitimate. She regards the case as hinging on how details of
the GPL apply - whether a work is derivative or separate, whether a
source code release cures a breach - but shows no sign of believing
that the GPL as a whole is not a valid license.

All the world except for a few cranks and crazies regards the GPL as
working the way it purports to.