------ Comment 1549: Acceptance is a dangerous concept This Comment is resolved by:
This Comment is part of the discussion on: Regarding the text: if you do not accept this License. In section: gpl3.notacontract.p0.s4 Submitted by: sepreece on 2006-08-01 at 23:49 EDT 0 agree: noted by sepreece on 2006-08-01 at 23:49 EDT: It's odd to see this language here, since I thought the FSF was opposed to implied agreement agreements. It also isn't clear what "accepting the license" means. I think what you mean to say is "infringe copyright if you do not conform to the terms of this license". It's behavior, not acceptance, that matters. noted by ashawley on 2006-08-02 at 02:50 EDT: The language and motivation has changed little here since version 2. The FSF is still opposed to implied agreements. That's why I liked the original heading in the first draft, "Not a contract". Lawyers didn't like it and had it expunged. Accepting the license means exactly what the next sentence says in the second draft of GPLv2, "by modifying or propagating the Program (or any covered work), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions." So yeah, "its behavior" that matters, but its also important to mention when the license actually applies, and what's fun is that it's not from using the software just when the software is modified or changed. ------ Hollaar's (digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html) comment 388 on draft 1 was dev/null'd. ------ Comment 388: Not a correct statement of copyright law This Comment is resolved by: This Comment is part of the discussion on: Regarding the text: However, nothing else grants you permission to propagate or modify the Program or any covered works. In section: gpl3.notacontract.p0.s3 Submitted by: hollaar on 2006-01-17 at 15:43 EST 0 agree: noted by hollaar on 2006-01-17 at 15:43 EST: This is not a correct statement of copyright law, at least in the United States. With respect to "propagate", it is likely a tautology because of the defintion of "propagate" covering only things "that require permission under applicable copyright law". But for "modify", 17 U.S.C. 117 permits the "owner of a copy of a computer program" to make an "adaptation" in particular circumstances, and makes it clear that making that adaptation does not "infringe copyright if you do not accept this License." It also does not seem to recognize the "first sale" doctrine codified in 17 U.S.C. 109, that permits the transfer of a lawfully-made copy "without the authority of the copyright owner". Perhaps the interplay between the definition of "propagate" and this section covers it, but it is certainly not made clear and, in fact, misleads one in thinking that the only way to redistribute a lawful copy is to accept the License. noted by neroden on 2006-01-18 at 18:18 EST: This can be fixed by dropping "modify" and just using "propagate". Which should be done anyway. ----- regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss