A new open source license

[Matěj Cepl]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Paul Crowley [SMTP:paul at hedonism.demon.co.uk]
> Sent:	Saturday, May 15, 1999 4:14 AM
> To:	Ken Arromdee
> Cc:	license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject:	Re: A new open source license
> 
> > The clause following the "Therefore" doesn't logically follow from
> the
> > clauses that it is supposed to logically follow from.  Someone who
> > copies the code doesn't _automatically_ accept the conditions.  If
> > they distribute but don't accept the conditions, then they're a
> > software pirate and you can sue them...  but you can't act as if the
> > license has been accepted and can't, for instance, copy the
> > modifications.
> 
> It sounds to me like you're right.  What should GPL v3 say instead?
> 
	[MCepl]  I am not sure, that you are correct. What clause five
actually says is, that GNU GPL is accepted by conduct rather than by
giving notice of acceptance to offerror (in this case author of
software). It is not saying, that you accepted, but rather that you are
deemed to accept it. In other words, you cannot do any listed action
without permission from author (due to Copyright Act).

	You would need executing a contract with author, where he would
permitt you to do so. However, author is so nice, that he is offering
you just this contract, and he says in such contract, that you are
deemed to accept the licence when doing any statutorily forbidden action
-- distribution, modification or copying.

	The only problem I have (under the Czech law, I am not sure what
is the prevailing doctrine under US law -- I forgott a lot from my
Contract clases on USF) is, that contract is valid since the
notification about acceptance (by any means -- either actuall promise to
accept by offeree or information about acceptance by conduct) is
received by offerror. Therefore, GNU GPL is valid for both parties only
after that (offerree is bound in the moment he dispatches notice of
acceptance or moment of executing the conduct, unless beforce executing
a contract he receives a revocation of offerr from offerror -- these are
under European law only, Anglo-saxon legal systems -- with exception of
Big State of California -- has their mailbox rule).

	What's wrong with this wording (maybe, that there is something
screwed up in my mind -- I am a lawyer and I am used to this
formulation)?

						Have a nice day

Matthew Cepl