David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack <[email protected]> writes:
Tim Smith wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
"amicus_curious" <[email protected]> wrote:
What is at issue today, though, is the nature of such "default
copyright rules". If there is no fee charged to use the work or to
redistribute the work, the copyright can be ignored unless the
author can show some degree of harm to himself.
Where did you get that idea? Not from the copyright statute, nor
from the case law.
Actually the GPL requires licensing and distribution of the source
code to "all third parties" and no benefit (consideration) is intended
for either contracting party (parties in privity) to the GPL agreement
(try reading the GPL sometime).
Huh? What did you not understand about:
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that
you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and
charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use
pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do
these things.
[...]
You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.
[...]
d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
further charge.
Try reading the GPL sometime.
WTF does any of that have to do with the GPL being a bilateral
contract with "all third parties" receiving the consideration?
"In general, a waiver of any legal right at the request of another
party is a sufficient consideration for a promise."; HAMER v. SIDWAY
124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256.
"In addition, under contract law, a contract is supported by
consideration even if the consideration flows solely to a third
party. See Mencher v. Weiss, 114 N.E.2d at 181(“[I]t is fundamental
that a benefit flowing to a third person or legal entity constitutes
a sufficient consideration for the promise of another.”);
RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 71, cmt. e (1981)."
In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd., 326 B.R. 240 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005)
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
