David Kastrup wrote:
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

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.

Who am I supposed to believe? You or my lyin' eyes? ROFL.

 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

RJack :)
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to