On 4/14/2010 8:05 AM, RJack wrote:
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:
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.
Section 2 of GPLv2 begins
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any
portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and
copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms
of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these
A straightforward application of the Article 224 definition
would then consider the uncertain event to be modifying,
copying and/or distributing the covered work, and the
performance would be the "cause to be licensed" and the
other requirements of the GPL.
The extent to which it is meaningful to apply contract law
to the GPL, which is a license and not a contract, and how
that interacts with copyright infringement is, of course,
the subject of our endless argument.
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list