For Approval: GPLv3

Chris Travers chris at
Fri Aug 31 17:47:11 UTC 2007

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> On 8/31/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at> 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: <>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list