🚀 go-pugleaf

I don't know whether the GPL is really enforceable or not; I suspect that only
a court case could decide that for certain.

But I do wonder:  suppose the GPL is enforceable; what would that mean?  I can
see three possibilities (assuming a situation where someone refuses to
distribute source to a program that incorporates code covered by the GPL)

   1) FSF could force the distribution of the program source.
   2) FSF could obtain appropriate monetary compensation for damages
   3) FSF could prevent further distribution of the executable program
(More than one may be correct, of course.)

What the FSF would want, presumably, is (1).  I suspect, though, that they
could only get (3).  That is, FSF's copyright would allow them to block
distribution of the program, since it depends on code covered by that
copyright.  (2) is sort of moot, since it would be very difficult to show any
specific damages, although there might be some sort of case.  But (1) is
clearly not part of the copyright itself.  It must derive from the considering
the GPL as an agreement that the program author is aware of and has agreed to.
There are two problems here: first, FSF has no proof that the author(s) ever
actually saw the GPL and agreed to its terms.  FSF could argure that they must
have seen it because of the way the software was distributed, but in general
it would be hard to prove this.  Second, and more important, the author could
simply say "okay, I hereby terminate the agreement", leading to result (3).
There's nothing in the GPL that says you have to provide source forever, and I
doubt such a provision would hold up in court.  

Of course, if the author can't distribute the program, then he/she/it/they
has/have lost whatever advantage they got from the GPL-covered code, so FSF is
in a strong position to bargain.  So in a sense this whole discussion is
theoretical.  Nevertheless, a particularly stubborn could simply stop
distributing the program in any form, and thus not have to provide the source.

Disclaimer: my knowledge of the law is largely derived from such reliable
sources as LA Law and Perry Mason, so I basically don't know beans about it.

Also, despite my misgivings about the validity of the GPL strategy, and indeed
about FSF's goals in general, I think that FSF has a moral right to establish
conditions on the use of their software, and it seems to me that if you don't
want to abide by the GPL you just shouldn't use the software.   But that's much
too simple an approach for this newsgroup :-)

   Robert