On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip Raul's honest and polite response] > I've been objecting to the nature of the generalizations you've been > making. In other words, I see you asserting that things which are > sometimes true must always be true. > > In the case of the "contract" issue -- I've been arguing that it's > not always the case that the law will rely solely on contract law. > I've not been arguing that contract law would never apply.
I believe it to be the case that contract law is the only basis on which the text of the GPL has any significance whatsoever in any jurisdiction I have heard spoken of, except that some jurisdictions may also apply doctrines of estoppel, reliance, etc. against the FSF and other GPL licensors in tort proceedings. An action for copyright infringement, or any similar proceeding under droit d'auteur for instance, will look at the GPL (like any other license agreement) only through the lens of contract law. IANAL, TINLA. I don't believe you have succeeded in providing any evidence to the contrary. > In my opinion, an assertion that contract law would never apply > would involve the same kind of over generalization as an assertion > that contract law must always apply. Contract law (or its equivalent in a civil law system) always applies to offers of contract; that's kind of tautological. And the GPL has no legal significance as anything other than an offer of contract, except perhaps as a public statement by the FSF and hence conceivably as grounds for estoppel. > I have been convinced, over the last week, that within the U.S., > contract law will almost always apply. I think there is a basis > even in U.S. law for other kinds of legal action, but I think that > you're much more likely to find examples in international law > than in U.S. law. People with actual legal qualifications in continental Europe and in Brazil, as well as other laymen who read and cite law, have weighed in on this one. While they are less prolix than I, they seem to be no less certain as to the offer-of-contract nature of the GPL. Have you any more evidence to adduce in opposition? Cheers, - Michael
