On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:39:14PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander> Yorick Cool wrote: Alexander> [...] Alexander> > The reasoning is pretty simple. As Sean said, it is based on the Alexander> > understanding that the GPL is a contract. Alexander> Alexander> Yeah. Except that everybody and his dog knows that the FSF's Alexander> position is that GPL != contract. Moglen and RMS now call it Alexander> "The Constitution" (of the GNU Republic, I suppose).
Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative and then you have to accept them all (including the dynamic linking business), or you admit you can depart with any of their assertions. In this case, the FSF's opinion notwithstanding, the GPL is a contract, there is no solid legal reasoning to suggest otherwise. On the linking issue, there are arguments for both positions. And, as an aside, in civil law at least, the court has full power as to how to qualify an act -- say it is a contract, or license, or whatever -- but is bound by the parties intent of the act's intended effects, in the limit of what the law allows. Alexander> C'mon, the GPL drafter RMS is on record: When he speaks as it's drafter, he has no authority, legally speaking -- expect if his view reflects common practice. If he speaks as a licensor, his view is authoritative insofar as it is accepted by the licensee. -- Yorick Cool Chercheur au CRID Rempart de la Vierge, 5 B-5000 Namur Tel: + 32 (0)81 72 47 62 /+32 (0)81 51 37 75 Fax: + 32 (0)81 72 52 02
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
