Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Rjack]

Thufir Hawat wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:41:15 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>
> > "Thufir Hawat" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> > news:bGwyl.50925$eT1.40557@newsfe20.iad...
> > > On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:58 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
> > >
> > > > > If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from
> > > > >  other EULA, in your view?
> > > > It is not any different at all.  Both are contracts.
> > > >
> > > > Now, what do you think happens when such a contract is 
> > > > breached?
> > >
> > > IANAL, are you?
> > Do you think that it would matter much to you?  Certainly there
> >  are many lawyers who disparage the GPL and there are at least 
> > a few who think it is a wonderful thing.  Will you only listen 
> > to lawyers who agree with your emotional interests or would you
> >  change your mind if a lawyer told you that you were wrong?  If
> >  a lawyer really isn't enough, would you believe a judge? The 
> > only problem there is that there are judges on both sides of 
> > the issue, too.   If you ANAL, what are you ever to do?
>
>
> I would give your words more weight on these legalisms were you 
> to claim to be a lawyer.

Lawyer or not, I would never claim to form a lawyer-client
relationship over the internet. That would most likely constitute
the unauthorized practice of law in most jurisdictions.

> So far as I can tell this thought process lumps the GPL in with 
> all other EULA on the one hand, and then differentiates on the 
> other, but only when convenient.

Why? Every EULA (contract) is written differently and should be
subject to somewhat uniform rules of contract interpretation
depending upon what jurisdiction you reside.

Jurisdiction is one BIG, BIG, BIG flaw in the GPL. Due to the dreams
of a universal copyright license, a choice of law clause was not
included in the GPL. That leaves the GPL open to the different
common law contract interpretation rules of the fifty different
states (plus Guam and Puerto Rico).

> In all of the postings I've seen no reason to treat the GPL 
> differently from other EULA -- violation, ignoring it, whatever, 
> results in being charged/sued/whatever with copyright 
> infringement.

If it were legally enforceable, which it is not.

> Just like other EULA's, right?

Depends on *which* other EULA. The *illegal* ones or the
*enforceable* ones?