Gpland [LWN.net]

Gpland

Posted Dec 12, 2003 12:54 UTC (Fri) by danw6144 (guest, #14336)
Parent article: Bob Young writes a letter to Darl

`Speak English!' said the Eaglet. `I don't know the meaning of half those long
words, and, what's more, I don't believe you do either!' -- Lewis Carroll --
"Alice in Wonderland"

Like Alice's Wonderland, the Free Software Foundation has created a new world...
Gpland. In Gpland there are no Unices or Contracts, only Gnus and Licenses. In
Gpland no person is ever permitted to utter a word or term that has meaning in
the real world law of contracts.

"The traditional example of the license is my invitation to you to come to
dinner at my house. If I invite you to dinner and the minute you walk over my
threshold I sue you for trespassing, you go to the judge and you say "Judge, I
wasn't trespassing, I had a license to be there. He invited me to dinner."
That's license - the unilateral permission to be on, or use, or possess, or do
something about property." --Eben Moglen

See the "invitation"? I can "invite" you to dinner at my house, but I can't
extend an "offer" to come to dinner at my house. An "invitation" to come to
dinner is in every respect a "unilateral permission" in Gpland. An "offer" to
come to dinner is a forbidden term in Gpland and shall not be uttered.

An invitation to come to dinner at my house instantly invokes the doctrine of
collateral estoppal at my door's threshold. Yet if I simply extend an "offer"
for dinner at my house, I'll sue your pants off and you have no estoppal
available for defense!

In other words an "invitation" to come to dinner is not an "offer" to come to
dinner! "Offer" to come to dinner would constitute an element of real world
contract law.

"§24. OFFER DEFINED
An offer is the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as
to justify another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is
invited and will conclude it." -- Restatement (Second) of Contracts --

WOW! This is absolute HERASY in Gpland! An OFFER is an understanding that assent
to a bargain is INVITED. What nonsense! How dare you use the word "offer" and
"invited" in a legal construction. The (Second) Restatement of Contracts is
banished from Gpland! Things like the "Restatement" only exist in the real world.

Gpland is a our world and we have every right to define things as we see fit
for our purposes. In legal matters we simply strike any word we don't like from
the real world and use another word of our choosing. Presto! We have created new
law. A sow's ear may be just a sow's ear in your real world, but here in Gpland
it's a beautiful silk purse by definition. Who's to argue? Your Judges in the
real world are too dumb to see what we're doing. Our logic is unassailable.

(Log in to post comments)

Gpland

Posted Dec 12, 2003 14:18 UTC (Fri) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link]

>danw6144

You know, it almost sounds like you have something interesting to say. Could you please rewrite your post in a way that is intelligible to the rest of us? Perhaps you could start by avoiding snippets of analogy, and just post for us your definition or interpretation of the terms "invitation" vs. "offer", focusing particularl on the differences and how they are relevant to the debate.

Thanks,
Peter Yellman

Gpland

Posted Dec 12, 2003 14:26 UTC (Fri) by danw6144 (guest, #14336) [Link]

I am a physicist by training not a lawyer. The best response to your question might be in the this e-mail exchange between a Law Professor at CSU and Richard Stallman.
It's well worth the time required to read.

http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html

Gpland

Posted Dec 12, 2003 19:19 UTC (Fri) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link]

I've read it. I believe I understand it. And, as I said in reply to your post above, you seem to be up in arms over an obvious point which was never in dispute.

Prof. Mickey Davis is right -- a license is a "unilateral contract" which derives meaning and force from contact law.

Richard Stallman is right -- GPL licensors do not claim that licensees have made any promises in return.

And Prof. Eben Moglen is right -- the GPL does not require contract enforcement in order to work.

Gpland

Posted Dec 12, 2003 21:15 UTC (Fri) by danw6144 (guest, #14336) [Link]

The point is the GPL may fall under mixed federal / state law interpretation.
There is a vast body of contract case law out there and it varies by
the fifty states.

See the decision Procd, Inc. v. Zeidenberg. It appears four federal circuits
are ready to accept a mixed federal-copyright / state-contract approach to
enforcement of software license.

MANDATORY DISCLAIMER:
Before the eyes of all you GNU/Linux flamers glaze
over and your mouse fingers convulse:

1) I am a physicist by training ... not a lawyer.
2) I have great admiration for the leaders in the
open source and free software communities.
3) I never believe anything I'm told by anyone
without first applying methods of skeptical analysis
and neither should you.
4) I am a card carrying member of the Free Software
Foundation (membership # 1550).
5) Should the FSF revoke my membership and return
my contribution, I shall just use it to support the
development efforts at the BSD group.
6) Micro$oft screwed me and I've been pissed
at them ever since 1994.
7) I dual boot Linux 2.4 and FreeBSD 5.0.

If you still insist on flaming me, you should know
that I have powerful friends in Washington, Beijing
and Moscow.

Gpland

Posted Apr 24, 2004 2:06 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

WOW! This is absolute HERASY in Gpland! An OFFER is an understanding that assent to a bargain is INVITED. What nonsense! How dare you use the word "offer" and "invited" in a legal construction. The (Second) Restatement of Contracts is banished from Gpland! Things like the "Restatement" only exist in the real world.

OK. Under what theory are then makers of UCITA saying this:

(d) [ Intellectual property notices.] This [Act] does not apply to an intellectual property notice that is based solely on intellectual property rights and is not part of a contract. The effect of such a notice is determined by law other than this [Act].

5. Non-Contractual, Intellectual Property Notices. Subsection (d) clarifies that this Act does not apply to copyright or other intellectual property notices that are not a contract. This Act applies to agreements and contracts. Thus, the Act does not apply if an academic physicist in Houston creates program code and makes it freely available to other academics or individuals as a way of contributing to the development of so-called "free software" or "open source" software. Non-contractual conduct is not covered by this Act.

Remember, UCITA is the law in at least two states. Is it possible that the law-makers, involved in making the law about licences, would give half a chance to "non-contractual intellectual property notices", if they were convinced that such things could not exsist?