RJack <u...@example.net> writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 3/16/2010 11:42 AM, RJack wrote: >>> GPLv2: "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, >>> that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or >>> any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all >>> third parties under the terms of this License." >>> >>> Supreme Court: "[I]t goes without saying that a contract cannot >>> bind a non-party". >> >> The GPL sets conditions for acquiring permission to copy and >> distribute a covered work. No non-parties are bound by the GPL unless >> they choose to acquire the permissions offered by the GPL. This is >> consistent with the quotes. > > That's a really brilliant tautology. > "If I never use the GPL then the Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply"! > Clever. Really clever.
You are getting this backwards. The Supreme Court talks about non-parties here. If you, as recipient of software, don't make use of the GPL, you are a non-party. So the Supreme Court ruling concerning non-parties _does_ apply, and you are not bound by the terms of the GPL. If you, however, make use of the GPL, you become a party of the license agreement. In that case, the Supreme Court ruling concerning non-parties does no longer apply, and you _are_, as a party, bound by the license terms. The difference between a contract and a license is that with a license, you have the choice to be considered a party, or a non-party. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss