On 4/13/2010 9:20 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936
I can quote meaningless random papers too! <http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf> But no matter how one construes the GPL, the requirement of consideration is not met. Though the licensor’s restrictions in rights might benefit the licensor, the GPL does not state whether those restrictions would translate into consideration and if consideration would benefit the licensor or a third party. The lack of a meeting of minds makes the GPL contract theory fly in the face of the UCC, state common law, and common sense. This leads us back to Moglen’s now plausible assertion that the GPL is not a contract. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss