FSF's Star Turn in the Android FUDathon (LinuxInsider)

"Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by
ordinary principles of state contract law.'"
McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (Fed. Cir. 1995)

"Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in
construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under
Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written. When
the language is plain and unambiguous, a reviewing court must construe
the contract as it stands. In construing the contract, terms are to be
given their plain and ordinary meaning." (citations omitted).
Kennedy v. Nat'l Juvenile Det. Ass'n, 187 F.3d 690, (7th Cir. 1999)

"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332,
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the
relevant state law to interpret them."
Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F3d 749,
(7th Cir. 2006)

"However, implicit in a nonexclusive license is the promise not to sue
for copyright infringement. See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673, 677
(9th Cir. 1996), citing De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United
States, 273 U.S. 236, 242 (1927) (finding that a nonexclusive license
is, in essence, a mere waiver of the right to sue the licensee for
infringement); see also Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d
555, 558 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that the granting of a nonexclusive
license may be oral or by conduct and a such a license creates a
waiver of the right to sue in copyright, but not the right to sue for
breach of contract)."
Jacobsen v. Katzer, No. 3:06-cv-01905, (N.D. Cal. 2007)

BTW, the last one is about Artistic License being a contract (just
like any other copyright license).

http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf

"On behalf of the people JUDGMENT ... The GPL grants anyone who enters
into such contract... contractual relationship between the authors and
Defendant ... incorporated into the contract by virtue of the preamble
of the GPL ... Plaintiff, or the licensors from whom Plaintiff
derives his right, have not violated any contractual obligations
themselves ... Defendant, who violated contractual obligations"

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf

MySQL's counter-complaint asserting breach of GPL license contract
("COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)") and asking for
declaratory (court to declare GPL terminated) and injunctive (court to
preliminary and permanently enjoin Progress/NuSphere from "copying,
modifying, sublicensing, or distributing the MySQL(TM) Program")
relief (plus damages, of course).

IBM's SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM (Breach of the GNU General Public License)
against SCO... "SCO accepted the terms of the GPL... IBM is entitled
to a declaration that SCO's rights under the GPL terminated, an
injunction prohibiting SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches
of the GPL and an award of damages in an amount to be determined at
trial" (Pretty much the same as MySQL's claim above), BTW. From IBM's
memorandum:

"SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the
Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC
20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is "well settled"
that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Kronos,
Inc. v. AVX Corp., 612 N.E.2d 289, 292 (N.Y. 1993) ("Nominal damages
are always available in breach of contract action".). "

Also worth noting (from IBM's brief regarding the GPL contract breach):

"the Court need not reach the choice of law issue because Utah law and
New York law are in accord on the issues that must be reached to
address SCO's sole argument on this motion, namely, that SCO did not
breach the GPL. Throughout this brief, IBM cites to both Utah law and
New York law."

This licensing principle -- that all intellectual property licenses
are a type of contract -- was explained to Richard Stallman by
Professor Micheal Davis in 1999. See:

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

Here's more:

"(A``non-contractual copyright permission'' would be some sort of
license that does not involve a contract I suppose, but that is not
a well defined term.)"

http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/diritto/2002-Feb...

-- the respondent's email address resolves to:

PETER D. JUNGER
Professor of Law Emeritus
Case Western Reserve University
College: Harvard College, A.B. 1955
Law School: Harvard Law School, LL.B. (magna cum laude) 1958

How about this:

"The GPL IS a contract. Calling it a license simply describes the type of
contract it is."

http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.or...

-- the respondent's email address resolves to:

ROD DIXON J.D. LL.M.
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law,
Camden, New Jersey, Fall 1999 to present.
EDUCATION: LL.M. (with Distinction), Georgetown
University Law Center, 1998. J.D., George Washington
University Law School, 1992. M.A., University of
Pittsburgh, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 1986. B.A.,
University of Pittsburgh, College of Arts and Sciences,
1984.

Finally,

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION'S REASSERTED MOTION TO DISMISS (Wallace case
about the GPL):

"as is evident from the ProCD case Plaintiff cites, copyrights may be
licensed by a uniform contract effective against all who choose to use
it. (Response at 6) (citing ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447,
1454 (7th Cir.1996).)"

That's very helpful.

The question becomes what "Any attempt otherwise [...] will automatically terminate your rights under this License" would mean in the context of a license --- is this an additional condition on further copying, modification, sublicensing, and distribution or just a way to emphasize which rights are reserved and require complying with other conditions? The FSF's intent was probably the former, but the latter also seems to be a popular interpretation.

Now the disagreement actually makes sense to me. Thanks for a clear explanation.