As usual, I don't know what your point is. If I read you right, you're claiming that I mis-read my own question -- that I really wasn't asking for clarifcation on why you asserted that the GPL is not a license.
If I read you right, you think that my citation of this case involving colorization was presented as something more than an example of a case based on something other than contract law. As for the scope of license issue... you seem to be referring to a principle used in patent law, and a principle which people think should be incorporated into contract law. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_5_15.htm http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ucita/citam99.htm As near as I can tell, you're asserting that in the context of a single instance of a single work the GPL can be factored into multiple licenses between a single copyright holder and a single licensee. And, you seem to be asserting that because this is the case that it's not correct to refer to the GPL as a license between these two parties, but instead it is oly correct to refer to the GPL as an offer of contract between these two parties. Have I got that right? If not, PLEASE simply state your point. If so, I think what you're really saying is that when the GPL uses the phrase "this license", it does not refer to the "GNU General Public License" but to some particular instance of its application. If that's not what you're thinking, could you please state your ideas more simply? In other words, I think you're saying that a court would conclude that section 4 of the GPL is meaningless -- that the GPL granted the licensee multiple licenses and that only some of them terminated. Again, if this is not what you're saying, please make your point more simply. -- Raul
