For Approval: GPLv3
alexander.terekhov at gmail.com
Fri Aug 31 10:43:56 UTC 2007
On 8/31/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Where exactly does GPLv2 say explicitly it is not a contract? The
> situation hasn't changed at all in GPLv3. As far as I know, the FSF
> stills views it as a license, but this isn't directly stated in either
When defending itself in Wallace v. FSF lawsuit, the Free Software
Foundation went on record with this:
Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no
bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because
the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the
terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the
complaint, the contract controls."
Are you still in doubt that the GPL is a contract?
More information about the License-discuss