Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Comment 1549: Acceptance is a dangerous concept

[Alexander Terekhov]

------
Comment 1549: Acceptance is a dangerous concept
This Comment is resolved by:

This Comment is part of the discussion on:

Regarding the text: if you do not accept this License.
In section: gpl3.notacontract.p0.s4
Submitted by: sepreece on 2006-08-01 at 23:49 EDT
0 agree:
noted by sepreece on 2006-08-01 at 23:49 EDT:

    It's odd to see this language here, since I thought the FSF was
opposed to implied agreement agreements. It also isn't clear what
"accepting the license" means. I think what you mean to say is "infringe
copyright if you do not conform to the terms of this license". It's
behavior, not acceptance, that matters. 

noted by ashawley on 2006-08-02 at 02:50 EDT:

    The language and motivation has changed little here since version 2.
The FSF is still opposed to implied agreements. That's why I liked the
original heading in the first draft, "Not a contract". Lawyers didn't
like it and had it expunged.

    Accepting the license means exactly what the next sentence says in
the second draft of GPLv2, "by modifying or propagating the Program (or
any covered work), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do
so, and all its terms and conditions." So yeah, "its behavior" that
matters, but its also important to mention when the license actually
applies, and what's fun is that it's not from using the software just
when the software is modified or changed.
------

Hollaar's (digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html) comment 388
on draft 1 was dev/null'd.

------
Comment 388: Not a correct statement of copyright law
This Comment is resolved by:

This Comment is part of the discussion on:

Regarding the text: However, nothing else grants you permission to
propagate or modify the Program or any covered works.
In section: gpl3.notacontract.p0.s3
Submitted by: hollaar on 2006-01-17 at 15:43 EST
0 agree:
noted by hollaar on 2006-01-17 at 15:43 EST:

    This is not a correct statement of copyright law, at least in the
United States. With respect to "propagate", it is likely a tautology
because of the defintion of "propagate" covering only things "that
require permission under applicable copyright law". But for "modify", 17
U.S.C. 117 permits the "owner of a copy of a computer program" to make
an "adaptation" in particular circumstances, and makes it clear that
making that adaptation does not "infringe copyright if you do not accept
this License." It also does not seem to recognize the "first sale"
doctrine codified in 17 U.S.C. 109, that permits the transfer of a
lawfully-made copy "without the authority of the copyright owner".
Perhaps the interplay between the definition of "propagate" and this
section covers it, but it is certainly not made clear and, in fact,
misleads one in thinking that the only way to redistribute a lawful copy
is to accept the License.

noted by neroden on 2006-01-18 at 18:18 EST:

    This can be fixed by dropping "modify" and just using "propagate".
Which should be done anyway.
-----

regards,
alexander.