Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

[Rjack]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <user@example.net> wrote:
> > Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > > In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <user@example.net> wrote:
> > > > Thufir Hawat wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>
> > > > > > Thufir Hawat wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>
> > > > > The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is 
> > > > > pointless.
>
> > > > > And, since the BSD license is toothless, why even bother? 
> > > > > Just license it the same way sqlite is licensed: public 
> > > > > domain. That's the conclusion which can be drawn from your 
> > > > > argument.
>
> > > > The conclusion that can be drawn from *my* argument is that 
> > > > using permissive licensed open source code such as BSD 
> > > > licensed programs will prevent someone from being hauled into
> > > >  federal court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who practice 
> > > > socialism in software licensing as a religion.
>
> > > :-)  The GPL is really crystal clear; it isn't some tricky 
> > > document with hidden traps waiting to snap.  A normally 
> > > intelligent child could understand it.  If you conform to its 
> > > requirements, which are few and clear, you won't have any 
> > > problem with "wild-eyed socialist zealots".  If you don't like 
> > > those requirements, use other code instead.
> > >
> > > > If *you* wish to present *your* argument that open source 
> > > > code should be released as public domain then present it as 
> > > > *your* argument since is certainly not *my* argument.
> > > It seems to be *your* argument, sustained by your own 
> > > interpretation of some judges' decisions, that licensing code 
> > > under the GPL is tantamount to making it public domain.
>
> > You are not entitled to make up your own facts. Where have I ever
> >  claimed that GPL licensed code is "tantamount"to public domain 
> > code? Please use Google and all the resources at your disposal to
> >  demonstrate that I have claimed such a thing.
>
> Sorry, my mistake.  You haven't claimed "tantamount to".  Your 
> claims are "tantamount to".  That is my claim.  ;-)
>
> > I have long argued that users who rely on GPL licensed code have
> >  grounds for a contract claim of promissory estoppel.
>
> Whatever that means, exactly.  ;-)  You have repeatedly asserted 
> that the GPL isn't a license, that it's a contract, and that one of
>  upshots is that companies can violate the GPL without the
> copyright holders being able to stop the violation by injunction,
> or receive monetary damages. (I'm not quite sure you've said that
> last bit, but I think you have). This seems to me to being the same
> in practice as being in the public domain.
>
> Where do you see the difference, in practice, between software 
> being in the public domain, and software being licensed under the 
> GPL, understood as you understand it?

Code in the public domain doesn't have ownership or other rights
attached to it. That's a BIG, BIG, difference between code in the
public domain and code subject to claims of promissory estoppel.
Claims of promissory estoppel would give a particular litigant rights
to use the code IF the claim meets the criteria:

"Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A
promisor — one who makes a promise — makes a gratuitous promise that
he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of
a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee—one
to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on
the promise. A substantial detriment — that is, an economic loss —
ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be
avoided only by enforcing the promise."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel

For example, if someone uses your licensed code and invests a million
dollars in developing and improving the code then they shouldn't be
out a million dollars because the copyright license that *you* offered
turns out to be legally unenforceable. This principle is implicit in
the rule of contract interpretation which holds that contracts are
construed against the offering (drafting) party.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)