🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1imlr5INN2tu@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>The actual force of the GPL as a true "license" has never actually been
>tested.  I'm not a lawyer, but it looks very much like "shrink-wrap"
>licenses, which many people believe are not really enforceable.  
                                                                  
Paragraph 5 of the GPL (version 2) says:

      5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
    signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
    distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
    prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
    modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
    Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
    all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
    the Program or works based on it.

This hasn't been tested yet in court, however. 


>The GPL is probably better viewed as a description of the copyright terms;

That seems like the only sensible definition to me, given the above.
Whether that is the official FSF interpretation or not I don't know.