🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <FRIEDMAN.93Jan9114839@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu> friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) 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.

OK, assume this part is legally valid.

>Therefore, by
>    modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
>    Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so...

Does this work?  I don't think so.  If the only way to legally distribute
the program is to accept the license, it does not follow that someone who
distributes the program has just accepted the license.  Rather, what follows is
that _either_ they accepted the license _or_ they committed a crime.  You have
no way to tell which one of these two options follows, and the logic in the
above License passage is fallacious since it does not rule out the other
option.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)