As said before, your grant of permission to use but especially modify a copyrighted work rests either on property law (license) or contract law (unilateral or bilateral contact).
A license can be revoked at any time (unless estoppel prevents this). You don't want the GPL to be a bare license for this reason.
A contract, unless fully integrated, does not rest solely on the four corners of the accompanying document. The intention of the parties to the agreement comes into play, extrinsic evidence comes into play, usage in trade comes into play. You want the GPL to be a contract as some contracts are irrevocable. As said before, and this is important, but you completely gloss over it or ignore it because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORDS BEING USED: the agreement between Spengler and the Linux Kernel devs, of which the GPL is a document, is unlikely to be deemed fully integrated. There is no integration clause in GPLv2 thus the four corners doctrine is not likely to be used in this case
(You do know the four corners doctrine, correct? No, ok then, keep quiet with your useless lay opinion)
Thus, as stated again and again, extrinsic evidence of the parties agreement can be brought in: the plaintiffs can testify as to their intention, to the usage in trade of the words, to the distribution of the kernel itself traditionally, etc. We can talk about if Brad Spengler, is, in bad-faith, attempting to subvert the intentions of the rights holders (of which intel is one). There is alot to be discovered here.
But you just don't know the law at all so don't see it at all.
Not that some would understand these words. Some see the word "License" in the heading of the document and are convinced that that is exactly what it is, legally; and they even think if it were it would be to their advantage!
As for the GPL FAQ: The FSF might (or might not) intend that when they put out their works, but the FSF is not a party to this agreement. The 10's of thousands of programmers/rights-holders who have worked on linux (including Intel) on one side and Brad Spengler and Pax Team on the other side are the parties to this agreement. The GPL FAQ is only extrinsic evidence in disputes arising out of FSF copyrighted works, not wo
This is why you need lawyers, because lay people, such as yourself, only see the surface of the thing (the paper put under your nose), not the vast edifice on which it is hung.
A license can be revoked at any time (unless estoppel prevents this). You don't want the GPL to be a bare license for this reason.
A contract, unless fully integrated, does not rest solely on the four corners of the accompanying document. The intention of the parties to the agreement comes into play, extrinsic evidence comes into play, usage in trade comes into play. You want the GPL to be a contract as some contracts are irrevocable. As said before, and this is important, but you completely gloss over it or ignore it because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORDS BEING USED: the agreement between Spengler and the Linux Kernel devs, of which the GPL is a document, is unlikely to be deemed fully integrated. There is no integration clause in GPLv2 thus the four corners doctrine is not likely to be used in this case
(You do know the four corners doctrine, correct? No, ok then, keep quiet with your useless lay opinion)
Thus, as stated again and again, extrinsic evidence of the parties agreement can be brought in: the plaintiffs
can testify as to their intention, to the usage in trade of the words, to the distribution of the kernel itself traditionally, etc. We can talk about if Brad Spengler, is, in bad-faith, attempting to subvert the intentions of the rights holders (of which intel is one). There is alot to be discovered here.
But you just don't know the law at all so don't see it at all.
(Some more explained: http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.html )
Not that some would understand these words. Some see the word "License" in the heading of the document and are convinced that that is exactly what it is, legally; and they even think if it were it would be to their advantage!
As for the GPL FAQ: The FSF might (or might not) intend that when they put out their works, but the FSF is not a party to this agreement. The 10's of thousands of programmers/rights-holders who have worked on linux (including Intel) on one side and Brad Spengler and Pax Team on the other side are the parties to this agreement. The GPL FAQ is only extrinsic evidence in disputes arising out of FSF copyrighted works, not wo
This is why you need lawyers, because lay people, such as yourself, only see the surface of the thing (the paper put under your nose), not the vast edifice on which it is hung.