Re: Help to pick a license for my free source code project

[rjack]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 07:42:53PM -0400, rjack wrote:
> > Eben then further states:
> >
> > “In the case of the GPL, no one is bound to anything in 
> > particular unless she redistributes the software, modified or 
> > unmodified.”
> >
> > This is *not* true. No one can be bound by the GPL whether 
> > distribution occurs or not -- because a contract cannot bind
> > “all third parties” as the GPL’s sec. 2(b) purports to require. See:
> >
> > “It goes without saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty.”; 
> > Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Waffle House, Inc. 122 
> > S.Ct. 754, 764 (2002)
> >
> > Who ya’ gonna’ believe. . . the United States Supreme Court
> > or Eben Moglen?
>
> Not you certainly, because GPL 2, 2(b) does not bind third parties.
>
> It binds the second party (you, in the license).
>
> So while USSC says something which is completely true, you lie about
> the GNU GPL in order to distort reality towards your false reasoning.
>
> Rui


> Not you certainly, because GPL 2, 2(b) does not bind third parties.

No contract ever binds anyone unless you accept it -- that's a 
tautology.

When a *licensee* accepts the GPL "contract" by modifying and 
distributing it he promises to:

"cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or 
in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part 
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third 
parties under the terms of this License."

Now, I don't know what your native language is but in US english 
to "cause" a work to be "licensed" to a third party means to 
"cause" any accepting third party to be *bound* by the terms of 
the GPL -- that's the very crux of "copyleft" or "downstream 
licensing".

As to your habitual and obnoxious accusations of "liar" I can 
only observe:

When replying to a legal argument or belief supported by 
reference to applicable legal principle or citation to case 
precedent, attacking the character of the person advancing the 
argument i.e. calling them a "liar" renders the reply irrelevant.

You must base your reply upon citation to appropriate legal 
principle or case law that refutes the original sources. 
Attempting to refute rational argument utilizing ad hominen 
attack implies no reasonable reply is available.

People participating in this forum are obviously capable of 
checking cited legal authorities for themselves. Denigrating the 
character of someone citing to a legal resource does nothing to 
disprove the content of the resource. Appealing to base emotional 
reaction instead of urging rational thought should be left to 
political campaign managers