Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > > [... Pee Jays therom ...] > >> a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do > > What part of YOU INDICATE ACCEPTANCE don't you understand retard dak? > ACCEPTANCE is a contract thing, idiot.
Just because the GPL states something "indicates acceptance" does not make it so since the recipient of software may choose not even to read the license. Without an explicit signing, no contract is established. However, for the _sake_ of the redistributing party, acceptance is _assumed_, because otherwise we are talking not about a breach of conditions, but a criminal act: > "Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a > reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the > circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in > respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not an > unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner." De Forest Radio Tel. & > Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, (1927) > "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by > ordinary principles of state contract law.'" McCoy v. Mitsuboshi > Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (Fed. Cir. 1995) With regard to most of the standards of compliance, but without the possibility to state contractual (rather than actual) penalties for non-compliance, and without single invalid clauses rendering the rest of the license invalid, even without inclusion of a salvatory clause. We've been through that more than once. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
