Re: GPL v3 Draft
On 2/15/06, Steve Langasek <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:26:10AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:47:32PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > On 2/14/06, John Goerzen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > > > But we all know that the GPL is a license-not-a-contract, and so UCC
> > > > > and related case law simply doesn't apply.
> > > > Do we? I thought that a license was a contract.
> > > Everyone who is neither blind nor an idiot knows for certain that the
> > > GPL is a *LICENSE NOT A CONTRACT* -- Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen
> > > have clarified that fact at least a hundred times.
> > What purpose do you feel calling a person "blind" or an "idiot" serves?
> > I don't think you are contributing anything to this discussion.
> He's not. Would you please killfile him so that we can get on with life? :)
Oh c'mon, I try all my best.
This would not be a presentation about the GPL by me if emphasis was
not placed on what you see before you now. This license is
"Not a Contract.
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive a copy
of the Program."
We have not argued now, nor will we, nor can anyone argue, who reads
the text of the language, that the receipt of the code is some
quid-pro-quo for the acceptance of some terms. If you are existing in
a legal system in which that wasn't what made it a contract, then
...go with God, but arguments based on the contractual exchange of the
code for promises of compliance have nothing to do with us. We give
permissions here and the enforcement weight of our license lies in the
fact that you have no permission to propagate, that is, you have no
permission to do what copyright law requires permission to do, but
through this license. That's our legal theory and we are sticking to
Oh just love it. Moglen comedian. Brilliant one.