On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote:
2) "A Gentlemen's Agreement: Assessing the GNU General Public License and its Adaptation to Linux". Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, Vol. 6, p. 213, 2007.
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID987294_code410303.pdf?abstractid=951842&mirid=1> Existing case law surrounding shrinkwrap and browsewrap licenses that use a notice-plus-conduct model suggests that courts would find that the GPL creates an enforceable contract, if a party challenged this point directly. ... However, as long as the requirement of the GPL is clear to both licensor and licensee before contract formation, then the notice-plus-conduct model contemplated by the GPL operates successfully despite the lack of formal notice in practice. Courts will likely hold Linux developers to the same standard as parties who receive printed forms and choose not to read them. ... Regardless of the interpretation of the GPL as a license or as a contract, the text of the GPL helps to determine its enforceability. Thanks for the reference. The paper has a lot of analysis of GPL-related stuff, such as license vs. contract and the status of Linux kernel modules, but doesn't say anything terribly profound. As in the other paper, the author states his wish for the FSF and Linux to embrace non-free software, to which I'm sure the response will be "no, thanks". Otherwise, it's actually quite supportive of the GPL. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss