Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> It doesn't matter; the GPL isn't a contract.
That's good, as it restores things to their rightful order :}
> The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't
> bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so
> what? What would he sue FOR?
Well, I was thinking along the following lines:
If the GPL is a contract, but it is held to be void, then issues could
arise about the validity of free software licenses in general. Free
software licenses would have to be re-crafted into some form in which the
author receives consideration, and free software would quickly turn into
either proprietary or public domain software, which would be bad.
Since it's not a contract, that won't happen.
Reply to: