Re: Not So Simple [LWN.net]

Re: Not So Simple

Posted Dec 4, 2003 17:42 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065)
In reply to: Not So Simple by ncm
Parent article: The GPL Is a License, not a Contract

I think the answer is no, but it doesn't really matter.

Even if a defendant claimed it was a contract there would be clear
evidence that they agreed to it if they are distributing or modifying the
work.

Not all contract require signatures. Buying a candy bar at the store is
a contractual agreement.

As for consideration, the licensee agrees to grant the same rights to
others, including the original author, for their own changes.

So even if someone wanted to argue it was a contract so they could back
out of it, how would they do so without showing that they agreed to the
contract? Or are you talking about the original author backing out?

(Log in to post comments)

Re: Not So Simple

Posted Dec 4, 2003 17:54 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

I'm talking about the original author backing out.

Re: Not So Simple - Revoking permission

Posted Dec 4, 2003 19:22 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

The combination of sections 4 and 6 of the GPL seem to cover this. They
don't have any time limits and they make it clear that the grant of
rights is renewed everytime a work is distributed for the third party and
that the rights are granted only as defined in the license.

Under what conditions can someone normally back out of a contract?

This would seem especially difficult if the other party had acted on the
grant of permissions believing them to have been granted by the license
and believing they had met all obligations of the agreement.