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

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 06:55 am, Raul Miller wrote:

On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:

Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no
acceptance, which is a fundamental part of contract law.  No acceptance,
no contract, no exceptions.


For example, you can indicate acceptance of the GPL by exercising the
rights it grants.

While I certainly appriciate the simplicity with which you view the law, I'm going to have to stand by my earlier comment and restate, once again, that the authors of the GPL claim it is NOT a contract, but rather a grant/license. Now, I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again, lots of reasonable minds differ as to whether the GPL is actually a contract or not.

This question pertains also to legal definitions that may differ among distinct jurisdictions. For exemple, AFAIK under Brazil's legal tradition any licence is a contract, a software user license classified as atipical and/or as "of adherence" (contrato de adesão). Furthermore, licences such as there GPL are better categorized as "beneficial contracts" (contrato benéfico), to avoid restrictions regarding "adherence" contracts.

But if it is a contract then we need to start looking at acceptance by performace. Did the party who failed to make explicit acceptance act in a way as if he did accept?

Prof. Pedro Antonio Dourado de Rezende  /\
Ciencia da Computacao (61)3072702-212  /  \
Universidade de Brasilia, DF, Brasil  /____\

Reply to: