Date: 27 Feb 2002 19:21:53 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Rich Morin <rdm@cfcl.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: First test of GPL in court Message-ID: <wywuwys33i.uwy@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <p0510032db8a31e6f3943@[192.168.254.205]> References: <20020227122820.A64839@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20020227142005.A16555@energyhq.homeip.net> <20020227132417.B64839@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20020227052928.L12253@rain.macguire.net> <3C7D1454.6957B09E@mindspring.com> <p0510032db8a31e6f3943@[192.168.254.205]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rich Morin <rdm@cfcl.com> writes: > Beeeeeeeeeeep! The GPL does not rest on contract law. Rather, it > is based on Copyright and the unilateral ability of the copyright > holder to control what is done with the copyrighted material. The GPL is a contract in which the licensor agrees to license his copyrights and the licensee agrees to publish his derivatives, not sue the licensee for liable, and etc. The GPL says: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; ...". That's not true (see the warrantee and liability clauses for just two pieces of evidence), but even if it was true, this only means that the things being licensed are copyrights and nothing else. (Many licenses cover things like the right to execute and the actual copies.) But it also says "We ... offer you this license ...", and "nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License." and "by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so" and, finally, it's well known that it requires you to license back your valuable intellectual property in any derivative and not sue the licensee (also a valuable consideration). There you have Offer, Indication of Acceptance, and Consideration (if that's even necessary); all that's needed to qualify it as a contract. And in any case, when a licensee (even, and most importantly, without a contract) has a vested interest in the thing licensed (eg, he has built it into his system), the copyright owner looses his unilateral ability to control his material to the licensee to some degree. Eg, the license may not be withdrawn without compensation of the licensee. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?wywuwys33i.uwy>