Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <user@example.net> wrote:

> Copyright law as written by Congress is designed to establish the
> right to exclude. *ONLY* Congress can create those "in rem" rights
> to exclude. See 17 USC section 301(a).

> Copyright licenses are designed to waive particular rights to
> exclude so that licensees may use those personam rights granted by
> the copyright owner in contractual privity.

That's a very strange statement.  The GPL is not so designed; it is
designed to "waive particular rights" over any who conform to its
requirements, regardless of the contractual privy.  It is thus not a
contractual license, since there are no contractual negotiations or
handshakes involved.

By your statement, are you trying to show that the GPL isn't really a
copyright license, or are you making a historical assertion, that this
was the motivation of the original license designers?

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).