RFH: GPLv3

[Michael Eager]

Richard Kenner wrote:
>> 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
> clearly do.

There's no interaction.  There's no evidence of any communication, let
alone any evidence of an agreement.   You cannot even identify the parties.


> 
>>> 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.

There's no exchange of value.  A license (such as the GPL) grants a
permission for someone to do something under specified conditions.  It's
unilateral -- the receiving party is anonymous.  Agreement to abide by
the conditions of the license is (a) not a meeting of the minds, it's a
condition of the license, and (b) it's not a valuable consideration, again
it is a condition of the license.

I'm done with this discussion.  It's not going anywhere.

-- 
Michael Eager	 eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-325-8077