3 ms·
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 e
by 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 agoThe issue here is not about acceptance of the license, but whether it is just copyright infringement or also breach of contract.
- delinka 9y agoIANAL, 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 agoI'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.