On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > It doesn't matter; the GPL isn't a contract.
That's good, as it restores things to their rightful order :} > The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't > bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so > what? What would he sue FOR? Well, I was thinking along the following lines: If the GPL is a contract, but it is held to be void, then issues could arise about the validity of free software licenses in general. Free software licenses would have to be re-crafted into some form in which the author receives consideration, and free software would quickly turn into either proprietary or public domain software, which would be bad. Since it's not a contract, that won't happen.