> >> Note that the issue, in practice, isn't what the FSF distributes but what > >> a third party (RedHat, Apple, AdaCore, etc) distributes. > > FSF determines the minimum level of the GPL license, not RedHat.
Yes, sure. However, the issue here is not what the license actually *is*, but how one is to *know* what it is. If I get something directly from the FSF, I can have *some* degree of confidence that the text in the files actually corresponds to that license. If I get it from party X, there's no way that I can know whether or not party X modified the text in the file so that it no longer reflects the proper license. > > One thing which hasn't been emphasised enough in this discussion is that > > the version of the GPL under which a file is licensed according to its > > header does not govern how *you* may receive that file, nor place > > obligations on the person distributing that file to you: it places > > obligations on (and grants corresponding rights to) you in any *further* > > act of distribution. > > The GPL does places the same requirements on distributors. Yes, but please re-read the above very carefully! If I obtain GPLv2 software, relicense it as GPLv3 (which I can do), and then distribute it to you, the terms of the GPL that apply to *me* is v2 (since that's the license I obtained the software with), but you must follow the terms of GPLv3 (since that's the license *you* got). > A contract requires two (or more) parties to come to an agreement. Exactly. > GPL is a license. The GPL is not a contract. There isn't even an implied > contract. A license is a form of a contract. Look at nolo.com, a site aimed at giving legal advice to laypeople. They define "license" as "A contract giving written permission to use ...". Indeed a key issue in using the GPL is what establishes the legal relationship necessary to the contract.
