Quoting Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > B downloading from A is not a problem. The problem is: How can C get a > valid contract from A, but he is downloading only from B? Well, A has > said "GPLv2", and within the first condition he has given implicit > permission to make a GPLv2-contract on his behalf to anyone who has a > piece of GPLv2-source of him.
Under common law (and extensions such as the Uniform Commercial Code), the required contract element of acceptance entails _communication_ of that acceptance to the offeror. Obviously, C's acceptance per that framework is legally problematic. (Informally, one speaks of a "meeting of the minds" being required.) -- Cheers, "Cthulhu loves me, this I know; because the High Priests tell me so! Rick Moen He won't eat me, no, not yet. He's my Elder God, dank and wet!" [EMAIL PROTECTED]