> > You really are NOT a lawyer (or at least I would presume that from what > > you are writing). Much of the above is just WAY off! > > I am not a lawyer, but there is still no contract. No parties to the > supposed contract, no consideration, no meeting of the minds.
Yes, that's right, which is why I and others are trying to tell you that the file COPYING doesn't constitute a license (which *does* require a "meeting of the minds"). The actual license is often word-for-word identical, but it is provided in a context in which there *is* such a relationship between the parties. If no such relationship exists, you have no legal right to use the software. This is a VERY subtle part of the law; please don't presume you understand it unless you've studied it.
