On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote: >> A contract requires parties who come to an agreement. Further it requires >> consideration. Neither are present in the GPL.
> Of course software licenses have consideration: one party is getting to use > software and the other party is giving the conditions (very roughly speaking) > under which that software can be used. This doesn't appear to be enough consideration to establish a contract. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html by Eben Moglen, FSF legal counsel Licenses are not contracts: 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. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=936403 SAPNA KUMAR, Duke University - School of Law Attorneys have attempted to construe the GPL as a contract. If the contract model worked, it would provide the most protection to agreements made under the GPL. But there is no way to interpret the license such that the consideration requirement is met. Though the GPL is not a contract, it is enforceable. The Copyright Act does not require the formation of a contract in order for an author to enforce her rights against a copyright infringer. Likewise, a licensee is protected if the licensor breaches and the licensee relied on the license to her detriment. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
