[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: IBM's interpretation of the GNU GPL contract

From: rjack
Subject: Re: IBM's interpretation of the GNU GPL contract
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 12:45:36 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)

Alexander Terekhov wrote: (and Linux derivative^Wderived work as whole.)

He he.

I like footnote 9 about New York law on preambles and other pefatory
language in a contract aiding its interpretation. :-)


IBM submits on p23:

"Section 2 grants a licensee such as SCO the right to create and distribute derivative works . . . –-- provided that the derived work
“as a whole” (which in this case included the Linux Kernel) must be
licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.(Ex. 128 § 2(b) . . .)"

In other words one of the *original* license (contract) terms is to *again* license (contract) with “all third parties” under the terms of the GPL license (contract).

This is a contract between SCO and IBM agreeing to again license the created derivative work among SCO, IBM and “all third parties” (who choose to accept the GPL offer).

Unfortunately (for the GPL) one “essential term” of any contract is the specific identity of the contracting parties. “All third parties” describes a potentially infinite number of unagreed upon parties.

Any accepting “third party” must also agree to license his [as yet] unagreed upon “modifications” (which serves as an “essential term” of consideration from the potential offeree).

So now we have an original contractual obligation to form a second contract with unspecified parties for an unspecified consideration.

"—[A] contract to make a contract is enforceable only where all material terms have been agreed upon. 1 Corbin, Contracts, § 2.8, at 131, 133-34 (Perillo ed. 1993)." Prisma Zona Exploratoria de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Calderón, 310 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002).

"Under Michigan law, "[t]o be enforceable, a contract to enter into
a future contract must specify all its material and essential terms and
leave none to be agreed upon as the result of future negotiations."
Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. v. Waldo, 286 N.W. 630, 632 (Mich. 1939)”

"‘If the document or contract that the parties agree to make is to contain any material term that is not already agreed on, no contract has yet been made; and the so called "contract to make a contract" is not a contract at all.’" Hansen v. Catsman, 123 N.W.2d 265, 266 (Mich. 1963).

“To constitute a valid contract, the parties must assent to the same thing in the same sense, and their minds must meet as to all the terms. If any portion of the proposed terms is not settled, or no mode agreed on by which they may be settled, there is no agreement. Gregory v. Perdue, Inc., 47 N.C. App. 655, 657, 267 S.E.2d 584, 586 (1980). . . A "'contract to make a contract'" is not an enforceable agreement. Northington v. Michelotti, 121 N.C. App. 180, 184, 464 S.E.2d 711, 714 (1995)(quoting 1 Joseph M. Perillo, Corbin on Contracts, §2.8(a)(revised edition 1993))." Wilkerson v. Carriage Park Development Corp., 130 NC App 475 (08/04/1998 97-1387)

reply via email to

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