[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: