Supporters of the GPL license as well as the SFLC claim that section
2(b) is a "condition" to the license:
"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."

Now, the definition of a "condition" is:
Condition Defined:
A condition is an event, not certain to occur, which must occur,
unless its non-occurrence is excused, before performance under a
contract becomes due."; ALR, Restatement (Second) of Contracts.

The whole World awaits with 'bated breath for GPL supporters to
either put up or shut up by identifying the two critical elements:
1) the event; and 2) the performance.

GPL supporters need only identify the purported "event" which must
occur before "performance" becomes due under the GPL contract. This
would demonstrate that section 2(b) is actually a license condition.

Hyman or DAK can't do this. Could it be that section 2(b) isn't a
license "condition" at all? You betcha'. ROFL.

RJack :)

Hyman Rosen: "I never lose I just moooooooooooooooooove the goalposts."
DAK: "Me too!"
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to