Examining an attack on the GPL [LWN.net]

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 11:05 UTC (Tue) by dmantione (guest, #4640)
In reply to: Examining an attack on the GPL by jamienk
Parent article: Examining an attack on the GPL

> The GPL is a license (not a contract).

Is there a difference between a license and a contract in US laws?

In my own country, the Netherlands, the law doesn't speaks about licenses and
contracts. Instead, it speaks about agreements between two parties and a
license or contract is just a proof of an agreement, not the agreement itself. (I.e.
an oral agreement can has the same legal status as a written contract, if you can
prove it).

Because of that, a license which you find inside packaged software and you have
automatically agreed to by opening the package is void; there is no proof the one
who opened the package agreed to it.

On the other hand, someone who copies GPL software must have clearly read
the license, because otherwise he is not allowed to copy. In this case, the license
is a proof of an agreement between two parties.

(Log in to post comments)

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 16:28 UTC (Tue) by kay (subscriber, #1362) [Link]

> Because of that, a license which you find inside packaged software and you have
> automatically agreed to by opening the package is void; there is no proof the one
> who opened the package agreed to it.

this void only the "accept by open", so you can return the software if you dont agree with the licence inside.

if you use the software, the licence is accepted.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 26, 2003 9:13 UTC (Wed) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link]

You do not need a license to use software, just like you do not need a license to read a
book. You do need a license to install it, because that is copying, which you are only
allowed to do with permission from the author.

license vs contract

Posted Nov 28, 2003 17:22 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

In my own country, the Netherlands, the law doesn't speaks about licenses and contracts. Instead, it speaks about agreements between two parties and a license or contract is just a proof of an agreement, not the agreement itself.

Then you're just translating to English wrong. In English, "license" isn't a document or evidence of something -- it's a synonym for "permission." It is, by the way, very common to contract with someone to give you a license in exchange for something else (e.g. money).

It's hard for me to believe that Dutch copyright, patent, and other law doesn't have some word that means "license" in this way.

FYI, in American law, "contract" and "agreement" are synonyms and there is no good word for the proof of the contract. It's just called "documentation of the contract," or "evidence of the contract," or something like that.