Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > As the United States Supreme Court unequivocally stated, ..."It
> > goes without saying that a contract cannot bind a
> > nonparty."....
>
> Can a person a non-party lawfully distribute GPL software?

I don't understand your question about a "non-party".

By *definition* someone who distributes GPL software is a party to
the GPL contract of adhesion.

You accept the non-voidable terms of the GPL by copying and/or
distributing any code proffered to you under the license.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)