>>/14/
> not the author, but can't consideration also be immaterial?
No. Go FUCK yourself.
> the publisher of GPL software is giving you software (material good)
No they are not. They are granting permission to use and distribute their Copyrighted Work. They are not giving you anything.
> and the consumer of the GPL software is given the publisher the promise of following the GPL
No: you do not have an independent right to use or distribute the Work.
You have a pre-existing duty to follow US Copyright law.
You are granted permission by the Copyright holder to distribute the work and use the work
YOU DO NOT HAVE A FUCKING INDEPENDENT RIGHT TO FUCKING DO SO. DO YOU GET THAT ZOOMER F_UCKING_ FAGGOT?
Ofcourse not.
Now this permission is limited. The limits on that permission are stated in the memorandum (GPL): that it is not to be distributed if one is preventing others from doing so down the line etc. You DO NOT have a prior right to distribute or use AT ALL.
So: for these LIMITED permissions (up from _NO___ PERMISSION AT FUCKING ALL) you have given:
1) Nothing
And according to you
2) A Promise to follow Copyright Law.
Which fails because that is a pre-existing duty.
FAGGOT FUCK.