On 1/13/06, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/11/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh, that's close (hint: googly-googly covenant). But according > > to the FSF, the GPL is not a contract. > > I think you've misunderstood "the GPL is not a contract" as meaning > that there are no obligations associated with re-distributing GPL > licensed programs.
<quote> The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral permission, in which no obligations are reciprocally required by the licensor. </quote> and <quote> the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits </quote> > > That certainly seems to be the essence of your argument. Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breach of contractual covenant to forbear from the exercise of the statutory right under 17 USC 109 and instead provide access to source code as the copyright owner decrees). My argument is that it's quite easy to "escape" it by NOT entering into agreement. regards, alexander.
