-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jochen Topf wrote:
> A contract by definition is something you can only enter into > voluntarily. This is why the FSF insist that the GPL is a licence, not a contract. In some jurisdictions (IANAL, TINLA) licences may be contracts, but we don't talk about that. ;-) For the GPL, you do *not* have to accept the licence to use the compiled software. You do have to accept the licence to distribute modified source code though. As luck would have it, the distribution right is common to common and civil law. > So I know that it is not enforcable unless both parties > have agreed. It might still be not enforcable if both parties have > agreed (for any number of reasons), but if there is no agreement, there > is no contract. There's also the issue of "consideration" IIRC. And we really do not want to be relying on or validating the idea of click-licences. By reading this email you agree to this. ;-) - - Rob. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkj4+PgACgkQCZbRMCZZBfbkEQCfRFVVaaLZ/yKl25hxsp1Hfv+x wA0AnRTa3+TQCv7JcfYJjE9qNhzmVUY/ =L9s5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
