RFH: GPLv3

[Richard Kenner]

> > You really are NOT a lawyer (or at least I would presume that from what
> > you are writing). Much of the above is just WAY off!
> 
> I am not a lawyer, but there is still no contract.  No parties to the
> supposed contract, no consideration, no meeting of the minds.

Yes, that's right, which is why I and others are trying to tell you
that the file COPYING doesn't constitute a license (which *does*
require a "meeting of the minds").  The actual license is often word-for-word
identical, but it is provided in a context in which there *is* such
a relationship between the parties.  If no such relationship exists, you have
no legal right to use the software.

This is a VERY subtle part of the law; please don't presume you understand
it unless you've studied it.