Is the contract restricted to the buyers, or to the "any 3rd party" of the GPL?

The case had nothing to do with consumer protection or fraud. It related to whether there was a contract. It may have entered the judicial mind that the plaintiff was a poor elderly old woman and the defendant was a company but that wasn't the reason for the decision. The reason I brought it up was to contrast it to this case where there it is not clear to me how you could argue that there's an independent contract between me and you just because you publicly make a source code offer and I "accept" it. In order for there to be a contract, there needs to be an exchange of consideration. I'm asking: what does the person to whom I was replying think the consideration is here?

I don't know why you're speculating about the reasons for the Carlill decision because they're not relevant to the point and there's no need to speculate: anyone can go and read it. It isn't about whether the company intended to honour their promise but whether the promise was legally binding as an offer to the world (or whether, as they unsuccessfully argued, offers have to made to specific persons). Subjective intention is not relevant to the law of contract.

>And to whoever mentioned buying a house for them and their child, I don't think courts are extending contracts to "third party beneficiaries", I suspect they're just taking the attitude "a contract is a contract is a contract".

When I briefly explained the principle of privity of contract, its strict implications for intended third party beneficiaries, and that it has commonly been statutorily reformed across multiple jurisdictions, I actually wasn't starting a debate or asking you to come up with ideas about what reasons you might have or have had for coming to similar decisions. I know that sounds rude, but I don't mean it that way. I just don't actually see any value in speculations about things that aren't speculative. This isn't a topic that's up for debate, it's what the legal history is.

There is no legal principle that "a contract is a contract is a contract". There is, however, a principle that only the parties to a contract can enforce it and intended third party beneficiaries are not parties to contracts and so cannot enforce it. And a long history of that principle being applied. And a recognition in society that that created unjust outcomes. And a resulting effort to reform the law to enable claims by intended third party beneficiaries of contracts.

This has nothing to do with consumer protection in the scenario I outlined. The example was not a consumer issue. And it has nothing to do with gifts. My example was an agreement where A pays B in exchange for B transferring property to A and to C. C is not a party to that contract: C has given no consideration, didn't offer anything, didn't accept anything, and does not need to have any knowledge of the contract or manifest any intention to enter into legal relations.

Of course in that scenario the vendor should not be allowed to get away with not transferring the property to C just because A doesn't want to enforce the contract, and C should have a legal right and a claim. That's why this rule has been changed in so many places. But I'm saying I'm not sure how it has changed specifically in California, so it might not be as simple as it is in some places for a third party beneficiary to make a claim.

>I think the question boils down to "is there a clear contractual path to someone who has reneged on their agreement?", and imho as soon as you step beyond unconditional gifts / licenses, that brings an agreement - a contract - into play. Is the licence the whole agreement, or is the licence merely the terms of a contract? Imho if the licence places conditions on the recipient, then it has to be the terms of a mutual contract. It just doesn't make legal sense to me otherwise.

Sometimes the law doesn't make sense to laymen. That's unfortunate but it's fine because it has to operate according to rules and those rules sometimes have consequences that are unintuitive. The question here is whether there is a contract between Vizio and the SFC or whether SFC could make a claim as a third party beneficiary of the contract. They're too quite separate questions. For the former to be the case, there needs to be consideration (which I don't see and nobody has given a satisfactory suggestion for what that consideration might be). The latter claim seems much more likely to me, both from the basic facts as outlined in the article and from the express reference to a claim as a third party in the article.