Seth Johnson seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org writes:
Some licenses are contracts
I think there's a name for licenses that are contracts: "contracts"
no?
It's not as if the GPL found a magic category of the law
Obviously.
the GPL does bind people
That doesn't make sense. The GPL (like all licenses) is passive. At what point are the conditions of the GPL interesting? Only when the person wants to do something prohibited by law.
The person thinks "oh, I want to give a copy of this software to a friend". Copyright prohibits this act, so the person checks their license and sees "you can distribute if you make the source available".
If the person distributes without making the source available, they haven't followed the license, and they've plainly violated copyright law. They don't violate the license, because the license doesn't bind. They violate copyright law.
This is explained by Eben Moglen: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
In a follow-up mail, Seth Johnson continues:
To be more particular, the GPL doesn't actually grant you an exemption; it stipulates what kinds of derivative works you can produce from the work in question. It asserts a right in a certain way; it doesn't, in its formal legal structure, exempt you from the right.
All this sounds like juggling words around - and I didn't even say that the GPL "exempt[s] you from [a] right".
What you are describing -- "you are exempt if you also pass on freedoms" -- would require a contract.
I don't think I can see your point, or what you're trying to explain.