Re: When is a GPL program which runs in a web site 'conveyed'?

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>>  In a jurisdiction without copyright law but with
>> contract law, the GPL is a meaningless piece of paper.
>
> Not that there is such a place. But the ProCD case has
> shown that courts will honor shrinkwrap licenses,

But the GPL isn't "shrinkwrap".  You are not entering a contract you
don't know by breaking a seal.

> and I believe there are more cases where courts have upheld terms of
> service on websites, and so forth.

Terms which you have to agree to before being able to see them?

> It's thoroughly unlikely that any court will sever the
> permissions of the GPL from its requirements in the way
> that the skeptics appear to hope.

Well, the cases so far boil down to:

"Your honor, I don't accept the GPL."  "Fine with me, so this case is
not about the GPL and I can revert to established case law.  Makes
things easier.  Did you have any other permission to copy and
redistribute?"  "I need a permission to copy and redistribute?"  "What
do I need case law for?  Do you really want to continue this case
without even claiming a leg to stand on?" -- Settlement.

Or: "Your honor I have been sold a permission to use this and was not
aware of third party interests." "Well, third party interests were
involved and you were notified of it.  Why didn't you tell the copyright
owner who you got this from?  Why have this dragged here?" "---" "I'll
take note that the situation is not the one pleaded.  But first you get
to an agreement with the other party to pay its entirely unnecessary
expenses, and they can go after the actual perpetrator.  If you had not
waited until now before responding, this would not have been necessary."
-- Settlement.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum