This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFH: GPLv3
> This is very tedious.
Indeed it is. I'm going to respond to this and your next message
simultaneously and then refer you to a text on contract law.
> A license does not require the meeting of minds.
Yes, it does, since it's a contract. But "a meeting of minds" is just a
fancy way of saying that all the parties agree to its terms. And they
> > Of course software licenses have consideration: one party is getting to use
> > software and the other party is giving the conditions (very roughly
> > speaking) under which that software can be used.
> No, no, no. A consideration is an exchange of value. It's part of a
> contract. A license is not a contract.
A license is a contract. "Consideration" is an exchange of *things*
of value. The "thing" need not neccessary be tangible. For example a
contract between two companies who each agree to link to the other on
their website has consideration even though nothing of tangible value
changes hnds: the link is of value to the receiving company and in
exchange for receiving that value, it provides the reciprocal value.
I've said above what the consideration for a software license is.
> Despite the lack of a relationship with anyone at FSF, many people do
> download GPL software an use it, in accord with the license. They have
> a legal right to use the software.
A license is not between the user of the software and the FSF, but between
the user and who he got it from. My TiVo contains FSF-copyrighted software
and I got a license to use it from TiVo, not the FSF. This is important
to understand! If A obtains software from the FSF and distributes it to
B, who distributes it to C who, in turn, distributes it to D, there is
a license between A and the FSF, B and C, C and B, and D and C. There
is *not* normally a license between D and the FSF. None of this is
typically important to the end user, but that is the legal structure.