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

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/16/2022 10:19 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 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.

Yes.

But while i have no doubt that a license can be declared illegal,
then I do not see such a decision make the software available under
other terms - such a decision would just make the license go away.

>                                               Or do you actually
> believe in the legal standing of "Copyleft".  :-)

Actually I do.

It is a basically a contract. The user of the software get
permission to use the software given that
the user fulfill certain requirements. People have two
choices - they can accept the conditions, use the software
and live up to the license/contract requirements - or they can say
that they don't like the terms and go for some alternative
software.

As a starting point a contract is valid. There are cases
where contracts/licenses/EULA/ToS has been declared
illegal and void, but it is still very much exceptions.

Arne