[Info-vax] The real problem that needs solving to grow VMS

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 12/16/22 09:58, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 9:40 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/15/22 20:23, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2022 2:39 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> This one really confuses me.  What effect would declaring the GPL to be
>>>> invalid actually have?
>>>
>>> That is a question for a lawyer.
>>>
>>> But as a non-lawyer I would say that if anyone got some
>>> software under GPL license and GPL was declared invalid
>>> then that person did not have a valid license for the
>>> software and would have to stop using it or risk being
>>> charged with copyright infringement.
>>
>> I expect the fact that it was made freely available on a very wide scale
>> would make that unlikely.
>>
>>> And a lot of stuff are under GPL: Linux, MySQL, GCC,
>>> WordPress etc..
>>>
>>>>               Mind you, I have never thought the GPL would
>>>> actually stand up in court if it faced a serious challenge.
>>>
>>> 25 years ago all businesses hated GPL.
>>>
>>> Today most business love if not GPL then at least GPL software.
>>>
>>> If it went to court and GPL lost in lower court, then I predict that
>>> the GPL defenders could collect a billions dollars to help with the
>>> appeal in an hour just by calling all the big IT companies.
>>
>> Or the other possibility being that those billions of dollars would
>> be applied to arguing that because it was given away with a totally
>> bogus license it has actually been released into the public domain.
> 
> I am very skeptical about that.
> 
> Copyright law and copyright decisions is very far from
> a philosophy of "available => legal to use". One need
> to have a license. And if someone make a deliberate
> choice to make code available under GPL, then it is
> obviously their intention to make it available under
> GPL not public domain (let us ignore the fact that
> public domain has some potential legal issues itself
> in the US). Code cannot by magic become available under
> other conditions than what the author intended.

The argument would be that because the license was based on legal
drivel it was never a license to begin with.  Or do you actually
believe in the legal standing of "Copyleft".  :-)

bill