On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 17:55:24 +0200, Adam Twardoch (List) wrote: > If the whole licensing construct is "you can choose the A set of > terms, or the B set of terms", and the A set of terms (license) says > "only this license grants you permission" or something like that — > that clause only kicks in if you "choose" license A. If you "choose" > license B, then A is of no interest of you.
During the discussion that led up to the formulation of GPLv3, Eben Moglen explained, more than once, the difference between a “contract” and a “licence”. GPL is a “licence”. Here are the parts I quoted again: GPLv2 <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html> (section 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. and GPLv3 <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html> (section 9): You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. ... However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. Saying “you are not required to accept” is not a “term” of the licence; it’s a simple statement of fact.
