3 ms·

What Perens doesn't explain, and what I'm curious about is if the GPL is considered a contract in just this specific case, or in general. As far as I understand

What Perens doesn't explain, and what I'm curious about is if the GPL is considered a contract in just this specific case, or in general. As far as I understand, a contract requires agreement from the contractor (is that the right term? Contractee?). The finding says: > Defendant used Ghostscript, did not obtain a commercial license, and represented publicly that its use of Ghostscript was licensed under the GNL GPU. These allegations sufficiently plead the existence of a contract. I read that as: Since the defendent publically aknowledged their use of the software under the GPL, they indirectly "agreed" to it, hence it's considered a contract. If a company doesn't publically state that, is it then not considered a contract, and only a license?

vertex-four 9y ago
The issue, of course, is that if they didn't agree to it, then they're (probably) redistributing a copyrighted work without a license to do so. So it's likely expedient for a court to assume that redistribution of a GPLed work constitutes acceptance of the GPL, as the alternative makes no sense.
- notzorbo3 9y ago
  The issue here is not about acceptance of the license, but whether it is just copyright infringement or also breach of contract.
  - delinka 9y ago
    IANAL, but it makes sense to me that A) you've agreed to the GPL and thus have willingly entered a contract, or B) not agreed to the GPL and are committing copyright infringement. You can then only be in breach of contract if you're operating under A.
    - notzorbo3 9y ago
      I'm also not a lawyer. I assumed that since they're making such a big deal about the GPL being considered a contract in this case, that in other cases it wasn't considered a contract. It feels like they're saying a breach of contract is somehow different than just violating a license / copyright law, but I'm not sure.
Nokinside 9y ago
>As far as I understand, a contract requires agreement from the contractor Maybe you are are thinking what is called express contract where parties state the terms, either orally or in writing. Two other types of contracts exist. Implied-in-fact contracts, and implied in law contracts are also valid contracts. Contract implied in fact is inferred from the circumstances There is no need for expressing the intent as happens in express contract. The language in GPL indicates contractual arrangement. This is indicated when referring to the effect of the "agreement" and to what conduct constitutes acceptance of the license. for example GPL 1.0: THE ACCOMPANYING PROGRAM IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS COMMON PUBLIC LICENSE ("AGREEMENT"). ANY USE, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROGRAM CONSTITUTES RECIPIENT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT
kelnos 9y ago
I read that as something that bolstered the case that it was a willful violation and not accidental, not that it was a required condition for considering it to be a contract.

vertex-four 9y ago

The issue, of course, is that if they didn't agree to it, then they're (probably) redistributing a copyrighted work without a license to do so. So it's likely expedient for a court to assume that redistribution of a GPLed work constitutes acceptance of the GPL, as the alternative makes no sense.

notzorbo3 9y ago
The issue here is not about acceptance of the license, but whether it is just copyright infringement or also breach of contract.
- delinka 9y ago
  IANAL, but it makes sense to me that A) you've agreed to the GPL and thus have willingly entered a contract, or B) not agreed to the GPL and are committing copyright infringement. You can then only be in breach of contract if you're operating under A.
  - notzorbo3 9y ago
    I'm also not a lawyer. I assumed that since they're making such a big deal about the GPL being considered a contract in this case, that in other cases it wasn't considered a contract. It feels like they're saying a breach of contract is somehow different than just violating a license / copyright law, but I'm not sure.

Nokinside 9y ago

>As far as I understand, a contract requires agreement from the contractor Maybe you are are thinking what is called express contract where parties state the terms, either orally or in writing. Two other types of contracts exist. Implied-in-fact contracts, and implied in law contracts are also valid contracts. Contract implied in fact is inferred from the circumstances There is no need for expressing the intent as happens in express contract. The language in GPL indicates contractual arrangement. This is indicated when referring to the effect of the "agreement" and to what conduct constitutes acceptance of the license. for example GPL 1.0: THE ACCOMPANYING PROGRAM IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS COMMON PUBLIC LICENSE ("AGREEMENT"). ANY USE, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROGRAM CONSTITUTES RECIPIENT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT

kelnos 9y ago

I read that as something that bolstered the case that it was a willful violation and not accidental, not that it was a required condition for considering it to be a contract.