Subject: RE: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
From: Walter van Holst <>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:13:42 +0200

 Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:13:42 +0200
Van: Arnoud Engelfriet []

> 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.

When writing contracts I sometimes spend more time on the subtleties of the preamble
than on the description of the prestations precisely for the reason that the context
of the contract can be as important as the contract itself. I tend to agree with you
that this clause is so central to the GPL that it is not severable.