* Rick Moen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030907 07:35]: > If you are asserting that licences must apply through contract > mechanisms (which is what I understand to be your -- tediously familiar > from past iterations of this discussion -- argument), then privity of > contract between the licensor and third-hand recipients becomes a > problem. You might be able to build a case that those downloading the > tarball directly from the author's site undergo the required offer & > acceptance, but further uploads and downloads entail no such > relationship between recipient and licensor.
Also further downloads do. Let's assume GPLv2 for a moment, and a set of three persons: A, the author, B, who downloaded it from A, and C, who downloaded it from B. B downloading from A is not a problem. The problem is: How can C get a valid contract from A, but he is downloading only from B? Well, A has said "GPLv2", and within the first condition he has given implicit permission to make a GPLv2-contract on his behalf to anyone who has a piece of GPLv2-source of him. GPL #6 says this explicitly: | 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the | Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the | original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to | these terms and conditions. [...] So, C is making a contract with A through B (even if A is not going to notice it). Furthermore, A can even not disallow B to make such contracts; a try to do this would be a serious breach of his contract with B. The same is valid for other licenses that allow re-distribution, even if they do not say it as plainly as GPL. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
