Hi Greg, I specifically did not address the GPL. Its authors expect it to be treated simply as a copyright license. Their opinion is available at the FSF.org website.
I do not believe I have the right to make unauthorized copies or derivative works of GPL-licensed software. Just in case it's needed, the previous sentence is a manifestation of my assent. I speak only about licenses that are unabashedly contracts. /Larry Rosen > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Pomerantz [mailto:gmp@;alumni.brown.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 10:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: 'Noah Levitt'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Manifestation of Assent > > > > > From: Noah Levitt [mailto:nlevitt@;computer.crynwr.com] On > > > In your opinion, would the act of distributing a piece of > > > (say) GPL software or a derivative of it be sufficient to > > > indicate assent, assuming that the distributor in question > > > obtained the software by downloading a source tarball via > > > ftp, without click-wrap, and that the tarball had a file > > > called COPYING with the full text of the GPL? > > > > The GPL folks think it is sufficient. I don't agree, but I'm not a > > judge nor am I your lawyer. :-) > > Larry, I've been following this discussion with interest, > trying to understand your position with respect to the GPL. > Are you arguing that you have the right to make copies of or > derivative works based on, say gcc, from some source other > than a license granted to you by the GPL? In more general > terms, are you saying that there are rights to the code to > gcc that you have that would be prohibited to you if you > agreed to the terms of the GPL? What specific terms of the > GPL take rights away from you that you would otherwise have > in the absense of a license? (for example, the warranty > disclaimer may be one, if you assume you have a default right > to a warranty on all software you use). Thanks > > Greg Pomerantz > > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
