<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<span style="white-space: pre;">> But the GPL itself states that
"the recipient automatically receives <br>
> a license from the original licensors". How come that the GPL <br>
> relicensors pretend to be "the original licensors" of SimPL'd work</span><br>
<br>
The GPL purports to bind "all third parties" to the terms of the GPL
license. Unfortunately the Supreme Court of the United States in 2002
reaffirmed a fundamental principle of contract law prohibiting the
parties to a contract from binding nonparties. See EEOC v. Waffle
House, Inc./, 534 U.S. 279, 294 (2002) (“It goes without saying that a
contract cannot bind a nonparty.”).<br>
<br>
Professor Robert P. Merges of the Berkeley Law School noted this
problems in his "The End of Friction? Property Rights and Contract in
the 'Newtonian' World of On-Line Commerce" (12 Berkeley Tech. L.J.
115), in which he describes the GPL as "informal (i.e., not legally
enforceable) restrictions on digital content."<br>
<br>
GPL advocates pretend the GPL is not a contract. They insist that the
"the recipient automatically receives<br>
a license from the original licensors" statement cures the obvious lack
of privity with "all third parties" in<br>
their GPL "license that is not a contract". --- It's a pretend world in
the GNU Republic.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>