Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > That sure looks to me like a mechanism to derive acceptance
>> > of the GPL.
>> 
>> Not really.  You can't sue people to accept the license.  You can only
>> sue them to heed it.
>
> Only if you can establish acceptance.

No, that is the difference between license and contract.  You need not
establish acceptance.  Otherwise the defendant would have the option
to say "your honor, I plead not accepting the license, thus am not
bound to its conditions, and would prefer to be tried in criminal
court for copyright violation than here for breach of license"?

> (And the courts won't enforce unlawful contracts -- copyright
> misuse, antitrust violation, etc.)

Ah, so you admit that the GPL's judicial track record shows that it is
lawful.  Fine.

>> > Not saying that makes it a contract under US common law, but this
>> > is a process to make people agree to the terms of the license.
>> 
>> Not really.  It is just pointing out to people that not having
>> signed anything does not make any difference with regard to having
>> to heed the license in case they want to make use of the rights it
>> grants above the default.
>
> Bzzt. You're hopeless.

Yeah, you might want to look for other victims to confuse.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum