I hope that Stallman’s future opinions have no impact of the GPL licensed software. He is the main author of the license but I wouldn’t bet that what he says years later have to be considered.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking. Why is the intention of the author of the license in question?
In this case, Stallman simply clarified that Parallel’s notice did not count as a legal requirement and does not conflict with the GPL. His opinion wasn’t necessary, but since he wrote the license, it is authoritative. In this case, the question wasn’t brought to court, it was simply a clarifying discussion, and thus his intention did affect how things go in practice.
> And specially someone who is neither licensee or licensor?
Also wasn’t Stallman effectively the licensor or representing the licensor at the time, as president of FSF, head of the GNU project, and author of the GPL?
>His opinion wasn’t necessary, but since he wrote the license, it is authoritative.
No it isn't. Licences, like most legal documents, are construed objectively. The subjective intention of the author is totally irrelevant to the meaning.
You might have misunderstood what I said. It’s not up for debate whether RMS’s opinions or intent on the GPL have affected industry practice; that’s a fact of history. His statements on the GPL are authoritative in the sense that they may have prevented the courts from examining this question.
RMS' comments and interpretations of the GPL have generally influenced how the industry deals with the GPL, and to the extent it has become de facto standard practice, the courts might take notice and take it into consideration.
Generally though, the contents of the text and (if applicable) case law surrounding its interpretation is more important.
the difference between law and code is the interpreter: law is interpreted by humans, significantly based on perceived intent, and code is interpreted by computers, which are expected to only act literally and deterministically.
I still disagree with arbitrary, just less strongly.
Whether his opinion on GPL is relevant, or if it is, how important it is, is up for debate. But I still don’t think it’s “based on a random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system”.
You’re referring to a different kind of dispute than I (and parent) was talking about. In this case, Stallman did handle the dispute about whether GNU Parallel’s citation notice conflicted with the terms of the GPL.
Okay that makes sense. You're saying that since the GPL itself is not open, that it needs Stallman's approval for modifications that are not explicitly allowed. And I was saying that it does not necessarily mean those modifications are enforceable between two parties in a random jurisdiction, which comes down to courts and whatnot.
Yes kind-of… in this case Parallel’s notice is not a modification of the license at all, and Stallman is the person who ruled on this question and confirmed this to be true. The GPL doesn’t prevent authors from including a notice, and having a notice doesn’t conflict with the terms of the GPL.
I feel like the whole problem here is that the legality of Parallel’s notice, and the separation of the notice from the GPL, is not at all clear. The language is confusing to users. People who take the license seriously are staying away from Parallel because of the fear of accidentally breaking the license terms.