WASTE and the GPL, plus a patch for the code

[Warren E. Agin]

Rather than get into a somewhat off-topic discussion of the intricacies of
software licenses, I'd just refer folks to Ira V. Heffan, Copyleft:
Licensing Collabrative Works in the Digital Age, 49 Stanford L. Rev. 1487
(1997). A very excellent article analyzing the basis for enforceability of
the GPL. It should be noted that the article was "peer" reviewed by
Stallman. It is a common misconception that licensing is purely copyright
driven and that contract law principles do not apply.

-Warren Agin
----- Original Message -----
From: <dsr at tao.merseine.nu>
To: <discuss at blu.org>
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: WASTE and the GPL, plus a patch for the code


> On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:58:45AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:32:19AM -0400, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > How is that not a contract?  You are granted something, namely rights
> > to distribute source code, in exchange for something, namely your
> > agreement to abide by the terms of the license agreement.  That sounds
> > like a contract to me...  In the case that you do not agree to the
> > terms of the license (contract), the rights you have are those you
> > would have in the absence of the contract, just as is the case with
> > any proposed contractual agreement.  If you accept the terms, you are
> > bound by the contract.  If you don't, statutory law applies.
>
> It's not a contract because it isn't governed by contract law, it's
> governed by copyright law.
>
> Copyright comes into effect automatically for any creative work. Then,
> the creator can assign various rights to anyone they please, under
> whatever terms they please. The GPL is a standardized way of assigning
> rights.
>
> A contract must be entered into voluntarily by two or more parties; it
> must be negotiable on both sides; both sides need to be aware that they
> are entering a contract.
>
> The creator of a work initially owns all the rights to it, as governed
> by copyright law. They can announce that the work is available under the
> terms of the GPL, and no contract has occurred. A random person can use
> the work under the terms of the GPL, and still no contract has occurred.
> The creator can negotiate with FooCorp to give certain rights to
> FooCorp, and that would be a contract -- between the creator and
> FooCorp. No contract exists with the random public.
>
> -dsr-
>
> --
> Network engineer / pre-sales engineer available in the Boston area.
> http://tao.merseine.nu/~dsr
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>