Re: Bug#317359: kde: ..3'rd "Help"->"About $KDE-app" tab calls the GPL "License Agreement", ie; a contract.
On 7/14/05, Sean Kellogg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Possibly... I really don't know. I think the question is worth exploring. I
> don't think that Specht v. Netscape is helpful here because it was a contract
> relating to terms outside of copyright and had a whole bunch of interesting
> things wrapped into it. If someone has a clean case out there that says this
> sort of behavior isn't "copying" and allowable, please share.
Dude, that whole "copyright-based license" thing is a delusion. The
GPL is an offer of contract, which is the only way that a copyright
license can be conveyed. Even an license implied through conduct, as
in Fosson v. Palace Waterland and Jacob Maxwell v. Veeck, is an
implied contract-in-fact. The whole of contract law is applicable to
it. Specht is about what it takes to demonstrate acceptance in the
absence of traditional "meeting of the minds", and you're unlikely to
find analysis more precisely on point than its Secton III: Whether the
User Plaintiffs Had Reasonable Notice of and Manifested Assent to the
SmartDownload License Agreement.