[NoZebra120vClip]

> The reasoning of this case rests on the intentions of the FSF when they wrote the licence. If the person who wrote the licence didn't intend you to be able to get benefits, you can't.

I contend that it does not.

It doesn't matter who wrote a license, it only matters who adopted that license when they authored a work.

The Conservancy is doing license enforcement on behalf of numerous authors and vendors of code, not authors of licenses such as the FSF or Creative Commons.

When I create a distribution of code and copy a LICENSE file into it, I take responsibility for the wording of that license. I don't foist that onto the FSF or MIT or BSD. I take responsibility for the wording, whether it is boilerplate or if I modify it after the fact.

[ufocia]

The conservancy is not enforcing the license nor are they representing the copyright holders in this case. The conservancy is representing itself as a 3rd party beneficiary to an alleged contact.

It does matter who wrote the document, but not in the way the poster suggested. One of the arguments made in the case so far was that the FSF's view of the document should be considered, but FSF is not a party in this suit most likely intentionally.