🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <PCG.90Apr25205938@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk> I write:
  
  The granting of rights to copy can be the effect of a contract, but the
  granting of rights does not necessarily require a contract.

Whatever the legal nature of the GPL, let's look at it the other way round,
on the issue of its enforceability:

By default, nobody can copy except the copyright holder. The copyright holder
may grant permission to copy, e.g. as the result of a contract, or by any
other suitable means.

The GPL is an instrument giving permission to copy; this is its main effect,
not the conditions it imposes on people that want to distribute (not
include!) copies of GPL software along with theirs.

	Note: let me repeat that the conditions for distributing copies of
	GPL software apply only if *distribution* with other software takes
	place; you can always take GPL software and include it in your own
	software, and keep yours secret and proprietary, as long as you don't
	distribute it to third parties. The GPL imposes *no* conditions on
	_use_ of GPL software, making copies for third parties, or making
	copies for oneself to be incorporated in own software; only the
	redistribution along with other software is subject to conditions.

If the GPL is null and void, then the software covered cannot be copied by
anybody (it may be argued that only the conditions imposed on redistribution
of copies are null and void, but in this thread we are arguing whether the
GPL itself is a valid legal instrument), whether alongside other software or
on its own.
-- 
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi           | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk