On 16/11/2007, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, sort of vexed. But have you ever noticed "GPL is a license not a > contract" folks citing ANY authority to back that legal nonsense > claim? Consider: > > [lots and lots of case citations]
It may or may not be correct, but I don't see how it is a "nonsense". It is certainly possible (under common law systems at least) to have a non-contractual licence. Whether the GPL falls into that category, and what the consequences of that are, is a different question, and one which I'm not sure your citations answer. Anyway, on reflection I'm not sure it makes a huge difference to the principles involved even if the GPL is held to be a contract. Under English law, at least, you could probably put an argument together saying that the release of software under the GPL constitutes an "offer to the world" by the original licensor. The outcome remains essentially the same, as regards the argument in my previous email. John (TINLA) PS - no need to cc me, as I'm subscribed to the thread. Alternatively, I'm happy to take this discussion off-list, as it is getting increasingly OT. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
