[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:08:23 +0200

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> It's not because you're not required to accept it. :)

Ah that. Well, it appears that Prof. Nimmer also thinks that RMS is a 
lunatic. "GPL has a schizophrenic approach as to whether it is grounded 
in contractual or non-contractual terms. ...

   You are not required to accept this License, since you have not 
   signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or 
   distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are 
   prohibited by law if you do not accept this license. Therefore, by 
   modifying or distributing the Program ... you indicate your 
   acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions 
   for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on 

This language, which is of a type used in contractual arrangements such 
as in commercial shrinkwrap licenses, clearly contemplates creation of a 
contractual relationship.64 “Acceptance” of a license is not relevant to 
a non-contractual restriction. The restriction simply exists. If the 
model followed by the GPL were non-contractual in nature, the language 
referring to “acceptance” would not be used. Instead, the copyright owner 
might simply state: “You may copy, modify, and distribute this software, 
but only in compliance with the following conditions.” Instead language 
of “acceptance” is present. This suggests a document that contemplates 
creating a contractual relationship if accepted by the other party.

The Preamble to GPL refers to the creation of obligations consistent 
with a contractual relationship. The Preamble states: “To protect your 
rights, we need to make restrictions ... These restrictions translate 
to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the 
software, or if you modify it.” The reference to “responsibilities” 
indicates contractual obligations undertaken by accepting the terms of 
the license and creating a contract."

> Of course your "mighty" slander can only make your "right".

Slander? There's a whole bunch of evidence that you both (RMS and mini-
RMS) are lunatics... kind of software taliban. And GNU-nazis.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]