Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is > > Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: > > It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB > contract. > > http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf > > "The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor > the right to copy, ..."
Germany might call things different, but you still have the situation that a contractual arrangement to which one party has not given its implicit or explicit consent differs in the details of execution and enforcement. For one thing, the license can't stipulate contractual penalties for non-conformance. > http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf > > "To begin with, the Panel has no doubt whatsoever that the general > business conditions have been effectively incorporated into a possible > contractual relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff > pursuant to German Civil Code Section 305 Para. 2. " "into a possible": the court says that _if_ one stipulates a contractual relationship, _then_ the GPL spells the conditions. So the defendant can't claim _both_ having a contractual relationship _and_ the GPL _not_ being involved in this particular case. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
