A new open source license
martinp at mincom.com
Tue May 18 00:05:47 UTC 1999
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 1999, [iso-8859-2] Matìj Cepl wrote:
> > [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).
> I don't know if there is such a thing as "accepted by conduct" in US
> copyright law (I haven't heard anything about Czech law, of course).
My understanding of Australian/British law is that "accepted by conduct"
underlies many everyday contracts: picking up goods in a shop implicitly
accepts an offer to sell. Shrinkwrap software licenses are based on the
> And even
> if there is, it might not apply if accepting the license violates some _other_
> law (re: MOSIX).
A contract may be invalid if it is illegal, but that doesn't mean the
contract was not accepted. Probably the "as a consequence you may not
distribute the Program at all" clause applies, but I think the court has
some discretion to say that the licensee was frustrated by the export
laws in their attempt to comply.
/\\\ Mincom | Martin Pool | martinp at mincom.com
// \\\ | Software Engineer | (Not a lawyer)
\\ /// | Mincom Pty. Ltd. |
\/// | Teneriffe, Brisbane | Speaking for myself only
More information about the License-discuss