For Approval: GPLv3

[Alexander Terekhov]

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?

regards,
alexander.