On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I claim that the GPL is not a contract. > > > > I don't believe I'm disputing any claim you've made when > > I say this, because near as I can tell you have never > > actually asserted that the GPL is a contract. The closest > > you've come seems to be this:
> This appears to be addressed to me, since that's a quote from > something I wrote. Oh, yeah, wrong Michael. Oops. Michael, I apologize for confusing you with Michael. And, Michael, i also apologize for confusing you with Michael. (I'm making light here, but I really do apologize.) > If you are entirely unable to find, via your mail > client or in the debian-legal archives, one of the dozens of times > that I have written "the GPL is an offer of contract", here it is for > your convenience: > > <assertion by="guess who"> > The GPL is an offer of contract. > </assertion> Good enough. I should probably point out that the GPL (in the U.S.A., where copyright is routinely resolved as a contractual issue, and, if both parties have agreed to it) would be treated as and "agreement" under contract law, and not the "contract". At least, that's my understanding of § 1-201 of the UCC. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-201.html If you want to be technically correct, I think you could call it a license, or even a license agreement. (Though, "license agreement" probably implies that an agreement has been made -- which needn't be true in all contexts.) -- Raul
