Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] > Promises regarding distribution are totally baside the point. We > are talking about *unilateral* grant, not a contract: > > http://gl.scofacts.org/gl-20031214210634851.html > > <quote author=Moglen> > > The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral > permission, in which no obligations are reciprocally required by > the licensor. > > </quote> > > Distribution is done under 17 USC 109, not GPL.
I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak still can't grasp the difference between *unilateral* stuff and contractual agreements in exchange of promises. The promise to relinquish the distribution right that I enjoy under the copyright law (17 USC 109), and distribute only as mandated by the licensor, is a (imaginary or not) consideration (AFAICS missed by Ben Giles), but it's totally beside the point under Moglens theory "in which no obligations are reciprocally required by the licensor". Note also that idiotic Section 5 (which blatantly misstates the copyright law) is somewhat at odds with dak's ad-hoc attempt to fix moronic Moglens theory. regards, alexander. P.S. http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
