For Approval: GPLv3

[Mahesh T. Pai]

Alexander Terekhov said on Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 10:01:48PM +0200,:

 > 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>
 > 
 > 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.

This is what I said:-

<quote>

  SOME copyriht licenses are bilateral contracts, the form and
  formation of which are governed by law of contracts. Once formed,
  the contents of the licenses and remedies for breach are governed by
  law of copyright.

  Even in case of unilateral contracts, the person making the contract
  (the copyright holder in case of works under GPL) the guy has to be
  competent to enter into a contract, and the criteria for competency
  is defined in the law relating to contracts, not copyrights.

  Think of the law of contracts as a library, to which the law of
  copyrights links dynamically. For the ``functions'' defnied in law
  of contracts, the copyright law looks into the law of contracts; but
  when there is a specific ``function'' local|private to the law of
  copyright, the definition in law of copyright prevails.

</endquote>

There is  a whole  lot of difference  between a contract  and license.
There is a whole lot of difference between a unilateral contract and a
bilateral  contract.  There  is a  whole lot  of difference  between a
contract,  a  bilateral  contract  and  a  unilateral  license  and  a
bilateral license.

And  they  plenty  in  common.  And  they  have  a  single  source  in
jurisprudence - the law of contract. 

And you cannot simply make generalisations. 

The GPL is designed to be a unilateral license. When you come into
possession of a GPL'ed work, you enjoy certain rights under the law of
copyright because you enjoy a status, called "the owner  of a copy of
the copyrighted work"

You can, if you want,  get more than what you enjoy as per that
status.

All that you need to do, to enjoy those extra rights, is that you -
when I say you, I mean the person desiring to enjoy the extra rights -
need to comply with the terms of the GPL.

That is why it is called unilateral, and a license. 

You need a bit of willingness to learn  to understand that. Sadly, you
lack that. 

One quality I admire in you is the ability to misquote and
misdescribe. There is a a hell lot of difference between a professor
and a teacher. A kernel hacker is not a mere sysadmin.

-- 
 Mahesh T. Pai <<>> http://paivakil.blogspot.com/
Netiquette Guidelines ==>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855