I seem to have touched a nerve there, and I was guilty of some imprecision. A license is permission to do something. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties that each party will do something under certain conditions. Software licenses combine these concepts in various ways.
Whether the GPL is a contract may be a point of legal dispute, but it isn't a myth. That the GPL is based upon copyright law is obvious, but it also contains contractual elements. Whether contract or copyright law takes precedence with respect to the GPL will depend upon the merits of particular cases, the ability of lawyers to advocate their clients interests, and the judgment of the judges and jurys involved. Regards, Steve Robert L. Read wrote: > >> >>I don't agree with many of your points, but I don't think we need to argue >>them. I would like to point out that licenses are contracts and contract >>law may trump copyright law. Some people do get tied in knots over real and >> > Licenses are NOT contracts. They do not trump copyright law. At least, > the GPL is not > a contract (perhaps some other license is defined as a contract, but the > GPL is not.) > I have heard attorneys explain this quite precisely; it is an > unfortunate myth that should > not be promulgated that a license is a contract. > >>imagined licensing issues. Perhaps a Common Lisp Standard Library could be >>placed in the public domain? Some programmers may be unwilling to >>contribute to a non-GPLed code base, but they should be willing to use it. >>Perhaps the IETF approach would work with a library specification and >>reference implementation. Anyone who didn't want to use the reference >>implementation would be free to roll their own. >> >>> >>> POINT #3: HUMILITY >>> >>> It takes a certain degree of pragmatic humility for a developer to admit >>> to himself that End Users simply don't care what programming language is >>> used to write the program. End users are really only concerned with >>> three things: (1) the program works correctly, (2) the program saves >>> time for the user, and (3) the program is easy to install and use. There >>> is also (4); the program gets bonus points if it looks cool. >>> >>> ... >>> >>You're creating a stereotype user and overgeneralizing from that. >>Entertainment value can be substituted for item (2), for instance. However, >>I think your essential point is correct. Whatever their individual wants >>and needs, users make a conscious or unconscious cost/benefit analysis and >>mostly don't care what's under the hood. Developers have to keep that in >>mind. >> >>Regards, >>Steve >> > > ---- > Robert L. Read, PhD read &T > robertlread.net > Consider visiting Progressive Engineering: http://robertlread.net/pe > In Austin: 912-8593 "Think > globally, Act locally." -- RBF > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Gardeners mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners -- Steven H. Rogers, Ph.D., [EMAIL PROTECTED] Weblog: http://shrogers.com/weblog "He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense." -- John McCarthy _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
