For Approval: GPLv3

[Raj Mathur]

On Saturday 01 September 2007 01:31, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> On 8/31/07, Raj Mathur <raju at linux-delhi.org> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > phrase "Whether and when" clearly indicates that there is no
> > implicit or explicit contract created as a consequence of the GPLv3
> > itself.
>
> Just a while back former Indian Law Professor ("teacher of law for a
> short time once")  Mahesh T. Pai promulgated that "the person making
> the contract (the copyright holder in case of works under GPL)..."
> <details>

With all due respect to Mahesh Pai, I'm afraid he cannot be considered 
the authoritative source for determining whether a licence is a 
contract or not in India.

> I once again suggest that you contact him directly (saving traffic
> here) regarding questions about contract status of the GPL in India,
> and its governing law (Indian Contract Act), Raj.

AFAIK, IANAL, etc. the Indian Contract Act does not mention copyright 
licenses anywhere, and the Indian Copyright Act does not anywhere say 
that copyrights are contracts.  I'd be interested in seeing a 
definitive source based on which you are making your statements above.  
If you do not have a definitive source (and no, stuff pulled out from 
Daksh' web site is not definitive by any stretch of the imagination) 
then let's drop this discussion here and now.

Regards,

-- Raju
-- 
Raj Mathur                raju at kandalaya.org      http://kandalaya.org/
 Freedom in Technology & Software || September 2007 || http://freed.in/
       GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5  0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F
PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/   ||   It is the mind that moves