Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I claim that the GPL is not a contract.
> > I don't believe I'm disputing any claim you've made when
> > I say this, because near as I can tell you have never
> > actually asserted that the GPL is a contract. The closest
> > you've come seems to be this:
> This appears to be addressed to me, since that's a quote from
> something I wrote.
Oh, yeah, wrong Michael.
Michael, I apologize for confusing you with Michael.
And, Michael, i also apologize for confusing you with Michael.
(I'm making light here, but I really do apologize.)
> If you are entirely unable to find, via your mail
> client or in the debian-legal archives, one of the dozens of times
> that I have written "the GPL is an offer of contract", here it is for
> your convenience:
> <assertion by="guess who">
> The GPL is an offer of contract.
Good enough. I should probably point out that the GPL
(in the U.S.A., where copyright is routinely resolved as
a contractual issue, and, if both parties have agreed to it)
would be treated as and "agreement" under contract law,
and not the "contract". At least, that's my understanding of
§ 1-201 of the UCC.
If you want to be technically correct, I think you could
call it a license, or even a license agreement. (Though,
"license agreement" probably implies that an agreement
has been made -- which needn't be true in all contexts.)