🚀 go-pugleaf

I am not a representative of the FSF, official or otherwise.

I am not a lawyer, and most of what I learned (or was misled about)
copyright law was what I read on this mailing list.

I heard that shrink-wrap licenses were ruled unenforable because
a license is a form of contract, and a contract requires an 
explicit agreement by both parties.

Some have claimed that the GPL is unenforable because it is
a license, and hence a contract, which requires explicit
agreement.

The position of the FSF seems to be that you must agree to the
terms of the license before you make a copy.  It is true that
you cannot be assumed to agree when you receive a copy.  It is,
however, incumbent upon a party to comply with the copyright
holder's terms when making a copy.  Thus before you make a copy
you must do whatever is necessary to acquire the permission of
the copyright holder.  The FSF makes this easy by publishing
their terms in a document they call a "License".  You are 
required by their terms to meet certain requirements when you
make a copy.  If you do not meet those conditions, you can
be sued for making an illicit copy.

It is not clear to me if you actually make an implicit agreement
under these conditions, or if one is even required.  Except for
the fact that the "Permissions and Restrictions for Copying" is
called a "License", there is nothing in the law as I understand
it that suggests that a contract exists.  I think it is splitting
hairs, since the FSF has the legal right to restrict copying of
their work any way they see fit, but the use of the word "License"
is misunderstood (at least by me).

I welcome anyone who understands these issues to help me to understand.

-David-

david@wubios.wustl.edu         ^     Mr. David J. Camp
david%wubios@wugate.wustl.edu< * >   +1 314 382 0584
...!uunet!wugate!wubios!david  v     "God loves material things."