no, he's 99% right
Posted Dec 5, 2003 17:12 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata
In reply to: no no no
Parent article: The GPL Is a License, not a Contract
every paragraph above is wrong, probably every sentence.
I find every sentence and paragraph correct and valid (and consistent with the article) with one crucial exception: The implied assent to the contract. The comment suggests that simply availing oneself of a GPL license could count as agreement to a contract.
It's a fair theory, but not supported in case law. You have to do something more explicit to agree to a contract. There is such a thing as a unilateral, or public, contract, which means you publish an offer that says, "If you do X, then I promise to do Y." Most people who distribute GPL software don't make such an offer, but even if they did (where "Y" would be "grant you a GPL license"), the way unilateral contracts work is that the offeror cannot sue the offeree for noncompliance (because the offeree's compliance was what made the contract exist).
I'm a contract lawyer, by the way, but have only a passing acquaintance with intellectual property law.
to post comments)