> > 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
