> This is very tedious. Indeed it is. I'm going to respond to this and your next message simultaneously and then refer you to a text on contract law.
> A license does not require the meeting of minds. Yes, it does, since it's a contract. But "a meeting of minds" is just a fancy way of saying that all the parties agree to its terms. And they clearly do. > > Of course software licenses have consideration: one party is getting to use > > software and the other party is giving the conditions (very roughly > > speaking) under which that software can be used. > > No, no, no. A consideration is an exchange of value. It's part of a > contract. A license is not a contract. A license is a contract. "Consideration" is an exchange of *things* of value. The "thing" need not neccessary be tangible. For example a contract between two companies who each agree to link to the other on their website has consideration even though nothing of tangible value changes hnds: the link is of value to the receiving company and in exchange for receiving that value, it provides the reciprocal value. I've said above what the consideration for a software license is. > Despite the lack of a relationship with anyone at FSF, many people do > download GPL software an use it, in accord with the license. They have > a legal right to use the software. A license is not between the user of the software and the FSF, but between the user and who he got it from. My TiVo contains FSF-copyrighted software and I got a license to use it from TiVo, not the FSF. This is important to understand! If A obtains software from the FSF and distributes it to B, who distributes it to C who, in turn, distributes it to D, there is a license between A and the FSF, B and C, C and B, and D and C. There is *not* normally a license between D and the FSF. None of this is typically important to the end user, but that is the legal structure.
