Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 11:41:31 -0400 From: Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> To: Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@rocketmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture Message-ID: <CAGBxaXn-U2B_hQUYJHGCwwXtJNx2=a8uKXRBBrpcYjxv6XgTww@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20200418165853.79dbdde1@archlinux> References: <3f1496d1f598c84b3871b630f161256e152aca75.camel@tom.com> <CAGBxaXmvde89R%2BREcup9PEV6SAzQAitwHn9og92uz51GYpu%2B%2BQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEJNuHwewpssL-t49D9pLYWNqYqwAzx4bE2eQdtow05=E9UY5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAGBxaXmvaNtiFZiza_fGrHzWAcMp64d_NWstwvvVvQ959oGWHQ@mail.gmail.com> <681077991.2278153.1587146552233@mail.yahoo.com> <CAGBxaXkMQf9Gs2bujJZjR0Gcv3nyig_FgcGc8m8282fB8_e_Xg@mail.gmail.com> <20200417213025.16ba5877.freebsd@edvax.de> <1659102270.119843446.1587168373188.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca> <CAGBxaXnNMchVfrVXDkNyBuO0YiQ2%2BJm0cefu6A80YgroPTnwLQ@mail.gmail.com> <20200418092801.20d10f5b@archlinux> <CAGBxaX=4=yx-xSo0gdsVgAoA7fUn8oRq3173covquHNw61kBJQ@mail.gmail.com> <4bc4b613-50a7-4890-61e8-5ed5037b07dc@kicp.uchicago.edu> <CAGBxaXntGMioFkp3xqq9CWSBA_vh=rNcJE5zZEkGafRA4N5kTQ@mail.gmail.com> <20200418165853.79dbdde1@archlinux>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:59 AM Ralf Mardorf via freebsd-questions < freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 10:12:16 -0400, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > >And no GPL is not a binding contract because it fails the > >"consideration" test of what constitutes a contract (i.e. no money > >traded hands and thus no contract was formed... the user gave no > >consideration). See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract ("The > >basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable > >contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and > >acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality" ) > > "Is the GPL enforceable in law ? > > At least in Germany, based on our own experience: yes. In recent years, > there have also been successful court cases in the United States. We > see no evidence to believe it is not enforceable globally." - > https://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq/ . > Not according to wikipedia which says it is an enforceable *LICENSE* and *AGREEMENT* but it is not a contract. FSF does not claim it is a contract (they claim the opposite) and with good reason it gives them and the person who licensed stuff under a stronger case since it is a federal (copyright infringement) and not a state issue. Note in the US unlike most countries the states (provinces) have widely varying laws and the one court that found it to be a contract was using a non-standard commercial code (not the Uniform Commercial Code used by a majority of states) thus it is not clear how it applies to UCC states (or states with different customized codes). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Legal_status -- Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGBxaXn-U2B_hQUYJHGCwwXtJNx2=a8uKXRBBrpcYjxv6XgTww>