Re: Draft Summary: MPL is not DFSG free
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> With a contract that both parties have signed it's fairly easy to see
> that both parties have agreed to the choice of venue; with a public
> licence quite a lot of legal work has to be done in order to show that
> the licence has anything to do with the case. So I wonder whether such
> a clause in a public licence has any practical effect and if so, how.
Guys, I am no lawyer, but I think debian-legal is misusing the terms
"contract" and "license". A license text is simply a proposed contract,
and a license is what you obtain after you agree to follow a license
text. Yes, there is a big issue in deciding whether or not someone has
accepted a license, but once that much is established, both parties are
bound to the agreement precisely as under contract law.
Heck, you can mail RMS your signed agreement to follow GPL in your usage
of gcc, if you want. The presence of such a signature would not make
GPL stop being a license nor start being a contract.