Re: Bug#317359: kde: ..3'rd "Help"->"About $KDE-app" tab calls th e GPL "License Agreement", ie; a contract.
On 7/14/05, Sean Kellogg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> But I'd really like to return to the question that got us all started. Is
> calling the GPL a "License Agreement" a bug? Apparently my "you have to
> agree to the GPL anyway" theory has gotten people all worked up... so,
> obviously that's not going to convince anyone on this list. So can someone
> explain to me why its NOT a license agreement?
Even in Civil Law countries where almost every transaction is
considered a contract the GPL itself would not be "the agreement". The
GPL lacks the form required for an agreement: It does not contain any
language that would indicate an agreement such as "the parties hereby
agree..." nor does it contain signature lines or even checkboxes where
the parties could indicate their agreeing to the terms. The fact that
would make a transaction involving the GPL an agreement is that the
parties, as part of exchanging the license, agree on something, be it
by written contract, by handshake, or even by implied agreement. The
whole transaction then is the agreement, consisting of the agreement
act itself and for example as an annex, the GPL.
> Do you not in fact have to
> agree to the GPL if you intend to use the rights under the GPL?
The language of the GPL clearly contradicts this and that expliciticy
(is that a word?) IMHO clearly trumps any semantics argument about how
you actually make a copy when receiving a file over FTP.