Subject: Re: IBM's direction
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:41:45 -0700

Quoting dlw (danw6144@insightbb.com):

> I have puzzled over the strange looking (to me) description
> that the IBM legal team used concerning the GPL.

File an amicus brief, if you think you actually have anything relevant
to say.

> The exact terminology isn't important . What's important is that
> "legally binding promises" are made that lead to enforcement under
> common (state) law.

Enforcement, yes.  Definition and nature, no.

> Next look at "conscious public covenant". This is the equivalent of
> saying "deliberate public promise".  A "charitable subscription" by
> each kernel contributor made in the spirit of charity and sharing. In
> other words it's just one big public charitable trust for all .

I'm sorry, but this is an addle-pated, tortuous line of reasoning.
First, you quote a bit of advocacy rhetoric from a court brief, and then
launch directly into your usual contract-law obsession, and expect
nobody to notice the non-sequitur transition?  Really, I don't think so.

> From the GPL:

From the _preamble_.

> Restatement (Second) of Contracts

It's still not a contract, Daniel.