For Approval: GPLv3

[Chris Travers]

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>   
>> 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:
>>     
>
> You've totally ignored my point, which was that neither
>  GPLv2 nor GPLv3 said GPL was not a contract.
>   

I thought I saw wording to this effect in the GPLv2.  I did not.  It was 
probably on some other explanatory note somewhere.  I was wrong and 
stand corrected :-)

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chris.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 171 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070831/f6021d9f/attachment.vcf>