WASTE and the GPL, plus a patch for the code

[wea at swiggartagin.com (Warren E. Agin)]

That's not strictly accurate. A license almost always incorporates an
agreement by the licensee to comply with certain terms and the GPL is no
different. While it specifically does not require acceptance, that is more a
function of approach (or philosophy) than a lack of a condition to the
license grant. The GPL does explicitly state that the acts of modifying or
distributing the code constitute acceptance of the GPL. So, at best, the
only thing you can do under the GPL without accepting the GPL is to run the
program yourself.

I would note, however, that the Windows installer for WASTE displays the GPL
and asks the person doing the installation to acknowledge the license terms.

As a matter of law, absent some form of consideration, presumably in the
form of the licensee's agreement to comply with the license terms, the GPL's
grant of the right to run the software would be an unenforceable gratuitous
promise. That promise would be fully revocable at any time. Since the GPL's
grant is unlimited as to time, the party running the software would, in
fact, want to take the position that an enforceable contract had been
formed. Otherwise, it would have no ability to enforce the promise as
against the licensor.

Saying it is not a contract, and the language in paragraph 5 "You are not
required to accept this License, since you have not signed it." are mere
semantics. Although the GPL is fairly close to a pure IP license, it is,
like almost any other license, dependent in part upon contract law for
enforcement.

Anyway, that construct is probably the only thing that would keep AOL at
bay.

-Warren Agin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L Krawitz" <rlk at alum.mit.edu>
To: <wea at swiggartagin.com>
Cc: <discuss at blu.org>
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: WASTE and the GPL, plus a patch for the code


> The GPL is not a contract.  It's a conditional grant of additional
> rights that would otherwise not be granted under copyright (so states
> the FSF).  As it notes, you're not required to accept the GPL, but in
> that case you only have the normal rights that come with copyright --
> in particular, no right to distribute.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>