"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Um, it is true that the rules for interpreting the meaning of licenses >> are more or less the same as the rules for interpreting contracts. It >> does not follow that licenses are therefore contracts. > > The words "license" and "contract" are indeed not synonymous under > law. But the law applicable to offers of contract containing grants > of license is contract law (or the equivalent codes in civil law > systems).
You're speaking too vaguely. The law applicable to offers of contract is of course contract law. It does not follow that the GPL is thus an offer of contract. Indeed, it explicitly disclaims any such intention itself. It would be a curious offer of contract indeed that labelled itself not an offer of contract. >> Huh? What about the license as just what it purports to be: a >> license? > > You're a little bit late to the party. Check the debian-legal > archives for debate and case law out the yin-yang. There's no such > thing as a "copyright-based license". I didn't call it a "copyright-based license." I said it's a license. >> There is a thing you are not considering: it is a unilateral grant of >> conditional permission. This is a perfectly well-traveled area of >> law. > > Also part of contract law; and not applicable to the GPL, which does > not lack for acceptance or consideration. Thread at > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg00209.html . I don't care what is "part of contract law." I care if the GPL has the legal status of a contract. You keep discussing *other* questions instead of that one. The GPL is a unilateral grant of permission, a concept which is independent of contract (whether you lump it together with contracts, in one thing called "contract law" is irrelevant to me). A unilateral grant of permission lacks the features of contract, but is still a perfectly real thing. Estoppel (which you have noted) indeed attaches upon such grants of permission: having granted me permission to enter your land, you cannot then sue me for (say) trespass. If your grant of permission to enter your land was simply a unilateral grant, it is not a contract, it is a grant of permission. It is also binding on you: having granted me permission, you cannot then sue me for trespass when I take you up on it. Now a grant of permission can be revoked, which is a different question. If the FSF turned nasty, could they revoke the permission? The question here is likely one of reliance. If I have relied on a future-tense permission (perhaps if you told me "you may enter my land forever") then to the extent of my reliance, you can't sue me for trespass. The bindingness of such things is tricky, and nobody knows how far it goes if the FSF actually attempted to revoke the permissions given. Indeed, for this reason the FSF acquires copyright through a contract with authors such that the authors retain permanently the right to distribute their work under any terms they like, and in which the FSF is contractually bound to distribute only under free software licenses. In this way, the FSF can assure authors and the world that its hands are tied and one need not worry about such a revocation of permission. (This is relevant, because a legal judgment against the FSF could result in its assets being transferred to some nasty person.) But the point is really almost irrelevant. If the GPL is actually a contract and not a grant of permission, then what follows? If you have agreed to the contract, it's binding, and that's that. If you have not, then there is no arrangement under which you are permitted to distribute the software, and so you can be sued for copyright violation by the FSF. Since this is exactly the state of affairs which the grant-of-permission argument claims would obtain, what is the practical difference? Indeed, reduction to practice is the point. If the GPL successfully achieves its ends, then it works. And it does, in fact, achieve them. On numerous occasions the GPL has shown that it is a powerful instrument for insuring compliance with its provisions as they were intended, even upon reluctant or recalcitrant redistributors. And finally, for Debian's purposes, it's even more irrelevant. Our standing policy is that if there is doubt about the force or intention of a license, we err on the side of simply doing what the licensor demands. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]