Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 19 Apr 2020 22:09:53 -0400
From:      Aryeh Friedman <>
To:        "John R. Levine" <>, FreeBSD Mailing List <>
Subject:   Re: GPL, not freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2004192157350.48305@ary.qy>
References:  <> <20200420011735.6448818053ED@ary.qy> <> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2004192157350.48305@ary.qy>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 9:59 PM John R. Levine <> wrote:

> >> In article <CAGBxaX=4=
> >>> you write:
> >>> Thus I suspect if push came to shove in a legal fight about the
> legality
> >> of
> >>> GPL forcing third parties that just happen to use a GPL'ed project to
> give
> >>> up all claims over how their work is used would likely
> unconstitutional.
> >>
> >> I'd suggest not playing junior lawyer.  The GPL is a contract and
> >> there have been successful cases to enforce it.  Nobody has any
> >> inherent right to use GPL'ed software (or any other software not
> >> released into the public domain) so if you don't like the terms, don't
> >> use it.
> > There is major disagreement if it is a contract or an license (the two
> are
> > not the same) see the wikipedia article on legal status
> Whichever it might turn out to be, it's still inane to claim there's any
> sort of constitutional issue, and it's still a bad idea to play junior
> lawyer.

 Not true according to the US Copyright office:

> > over it and if a contract is possible without consideration on both sides
> You might want to read some of the clickwrap case law.

All of which says you *MUST* actively agree to the license before opening
the contents.   GPL makes no such requirement (it is a passive acceptance)
and thus likely not quiet the same.
Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer,

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>