[pabs3]

The article clearly states that the GPL is both a license and a contract:

But many lawyers have advised us that contract law is a useful parallel avenue. This approach has the advantage of empowering users of the software who are not necessarily copyright holders. The mantra of “the GPL is not a contract” is a mistruth that has been so often repeated that it became widely accepted and typically unchallenged. (We expect you'll hear this theory repeated even more loudly now that the our Vizio lawsuit brought the question to the forefront in a federal court case.) Yet, prominent legal experts outside of FOSS social circles have long scoffed at the assertion. Indeed, case law in the USA has held the opposite. In multiple cases, courts have been convinced, specifically, that the GPL operates as both a contract and a copyright license. The law appears clear on this, and this is among the reasons why we believe our motion to remand will succeed. In short, we'll say it plainly here and now for everyone: the GPL operates both as a copyright license and as a contract; litigation can proceed under either of those legal theories. Our motion to remand in the Vizio case explains the legal details as to why that's true.

[noduerme]

The article asserts that in their opinion, it's a valid legal theory that GPL constitutes a contract. One hopes the courts will put a limit to what that "contract" entitles the users of GPL software to sue coders for.

[pabs3]

Agreed with the second part, hopefully users of GPL software would only be able to sue for GPL violation and only be able to obtain GPL compliance, rather than damages of any kind. Also, at least with GPLv3 there are some ways to get the license back by coming into compliance.

[pabs3]

They assert that it has been courts opinions too.

[noduerme]

True. They assert it. I think as a brief, they doth protest enough to make you wonder how much is settled law and how much is looking for precedent.

[pabs3]

They are absolutely looking to create precedent on the "third-party beneficiary of the GPL" idea, which will be great for users of GPL software if it happens.

As IANAL, I'm unable to judge if the cases they cite in the motion back up the "GPL is a contract too" idea though.

[noduerme]

I think we're on the same page, as I'm no fan of allowing intermediaries to copyright something that was copied left. But the idea that a third or even a second party can treat GPL as a contract ... doesn't that potentially create enormous liability for the creators of the original code? I mean I guess "as is" is plain enough, but...

After Log4J this was the first thing that jumped at me, not the anticapitalist argument.

[pabs3]

The case is simply about giving a second way for GPL compliance to be enforced. The copyright holders (the original authors or probably their employers) have always been able to enforce the GPL against violators, but when a large portion of the electronics industry is violating the GPL on Linux, it becomes infeasible to enforce it against every company, so outsourcing that enforcement to people actually affected by that GPL violation, and possibly even opens up GPL enforcement via class actions, which makes things much more even again. I don't think the creators of the original code would have any liability and anyway as the original authors who chose the GPL as a license, they probably know how to comply with it and are already in compliance.

[DarylZero]

There's really no such thing as settled law. E.g. Roe.