Hyman Rosen wrote:
> According to this paper,
> <http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf>
> the GPL is not a contract.

"Part IV proposes that the GPL is a failed contract, which lacks only
consideration. It advocates enforcing the license through state
promissory estoppel law and the Copyright Act."

LOL. I propose Sapna Kumar is just crazy. The GPL is full of
consideration on both sides.

Licensor's consideration is a promise not to sue for copyright

Licensee's consideration is all the enforcable obligations imposed by
the license.

The result is a belateral contract.

"However, implicit in a nonexclusive license is the promise not to sue
for copyright infringement. See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673, 677 (9th
Cir. 1996), citing De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United States, 273
U.S. 236, 242 (1927) (finding that a nonexclusive license is, in
essence, a mere waiver of the right to sue the licensee for
infringement); see also Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555,
558 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that the granting of a nonexclusive license
may be oral or by conduct and a such a license creates a waiver of the
right to sue in copyright, but not the right to sue for breach of
contract)." Jacobsen v. Katzer, No. 3:06-cv-01905, (N.D. Cal. 2007) 

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to