Hmmm.
Personally Geeklawyer loaths professor Eben Moglen of the FSF. We bumped heads with a while back and he came across as yet another loudmouthed pompous American academic lawyer with an unobjective assessment of his own brilliance.
Geeklawyer thinks the GPL3 to be brilliant in its objectives but poorly crafted, as is so often the case with the product of drafting committees filled with non-lawyers. That the GPLs 2/3 are enforceable in large part seems clear.
What is not so clear is whether they are enforceable in the vital parts. Many UK IT lawyers such as Geeklawyer, Alex Newson at Freeth Cartwright and others suspect fulginous drafting threatens its viability.
Microsoft have recently declared that they are not bound by the GPL3 and the FSF differs in that opinion. It looks like some kind of showdown is possible.
As Oscar Wilde said of fox hunting, it is looks like “The pursuit of the indedible by the unspeakable.”
That phrase...
Thanks for the mention! I think you’re referring to this post: http://impact.freethcartwright.com/2007/07/gpl3—how-does.html
Still no clear answers to the questions I’ve asked about how those sections of GPL3 work…
This is my take on this story: http://impact.freethcartwright.com/2007/08/fsf-takes-the-f.html