That's really interesting. I'm a lawyer, and I had always interpreted the license like a ToS between the developers. That (in my mind) meant that the license could impose arbitrary limitations above the default common law and statutory rules and that once you touched the code you were pregnant with those limitations, but this does make sense. TIL. So, thanks.
Does the reasoning in the cases where people to whom GPL software was distributed could sue the distributor for source code, rather than relying on the copyright holder suing for breach of copyright strengthen the argument that arbitrary limitations are enforceable?
Licenses != contracts, and well, the FSF's position has always been that the GPL isn't a contract, and contracts are what allow you to impose arbitrary limitations. Most EULAs are actually contracts.
Yes... a license can be granted via contract. I think the question here is whether posting a LICENSE.md file in a public github repo forms a contract (offer, acceptance, consideration) when a developer uses it. If so, I'm back to being unclear how "public domain" can really play a role. The developer is bound by the terms of that contract.
