conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review

[Matthew Flaschen]

Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> David Woolley wrote:
>> Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>>> This presumes that the clause is severable and not so central
>>> to the whole GPL that the judge will hold the rest up, but
>>> that's the theory.
>> Isn't the purpose of the preamble to make it very clear that this is the 
>> essence of the licence?
> 
> That's why I think the theory is unlikely to succeed. Nevertheless,
> for people that disregard preambles as "just a bunch of whereasses"
> the argument seems plausible as first glance.

Also, if it is a contract (at least under some legal system), which 
means Eben Moglen's interpretation that "Licenses are not contracts: the 
work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not 
because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right 
to act at all except as the license permits." 
(http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html) is incorrect, 
wouldn't the contract be invalid if the the licensor wasn't getting 
"consideration"?  IANAL, but I think the consideration would probably 
have to be the copyleft provision.

Matt Flaschen