Re: Distributing GPL software.
On 1/13/06, Raul Miller <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 1/11/06, Alexander Terekhov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Oh, that's close (hint: googly-googly covenant). But according
> > to the FSF, the GPL is not a contract.
> I think you've misunderstood "the GPL is not a contract" as meaning
> that there are no obligations associated with re-distributing GPL
> licensed programs.
The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral
permission, in which no obligations are reciprocally required by
the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the
license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she
doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits
> That certainly seems to be the essence of your argument.
Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breach of contractual
covenant to forbear from the exercise of the statutory right under
17 USC 109 and instead provide access to source code as the
copyright owner decrees). My argument is that it's quite easy to
"escape" it by NOT entering into agreement.