Re: The GFDL is _not_ a public license, says dak

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> On 2/8/2010 11:28 AM, RJack wrote:
>>>> On 2/8/2010 10:55 AM, RJack wrote:
>>>>> "authorizing others to authorize" simply doesn't appear in 17
>>>>> USC sec. 106 delineating the rights of owners of copyrights.
>>>
>>> An author licenses a publisher and its agents to "copy" and
>>> "distribute" his work. The means by which this is accomplished is
>>> covered under the legal concept of "agency".
>>
>> But the legal concept of agency does not appear in 17 USC 106 either.
>
> Neither does it explicitly mention the concept of contracts but all
> copyright licenses are contracts.

Nonsense.  The GPL is not a contract since the recipient of software is
not required to sign, accept, or even take notice of it.

If he wants to make use of this license, adherence to its conditions is
held to the same standards as with contracts.  But he is under no
obligation to make use of the license.  He can chuck it in the bin and
perfectly legally act like he never saw it.

You can't do that with a contract.

-- 
David Kastrup