4 ms·

It grants you permissions above and beyond what you'd otherwise have and doesn't remove any existing rights, so my understanding is that you're offering no cons

by mjg59 15y ago

It grants you permissions above and beyond what you'd otherwise have and doesn't remove any existing rights, so my understanding is that you're offering no consideration to the licensor and so it's not a contract.

Karunamon 15y ago
Yes, but if someone offers GPL licensed software to you, they themselves are in violation of the GPL if they don't cough up the source code. I don't see how I as an end user couldn't bring an action against an entity for violating the terms of the agreement.
- mjg59 15y ago
  It's not a contract, so you can't use contract law against them. You're not a copyright holder, so you can't use copyright law against them. What kind of action are you expecting? Edited to add: I guess if they sold it to you as a GPLed work then you might have some recourse under advertising law, but even then I think you'd probably be limited to getting your money back - there's no way you can compel them to give you the source code.
  - dthunt 15y ago
    You do however have legal recourse to ensure compliance (in the sense that you can demand they comply with their requirements under the license). If you're out for blood, contact the copyright holder.
    - mjg59 15y ago
      You can demand, but there are no circumstances under which they're obliged to comply. Even the copyright holder can't force that - the most they can do is win damages for infringement and prevent any further distribution.
chalst 15y ago
Quite. There's what used to be an easy test for whether you were bound by a contract: did you make an agreement with someone, someone's agent, or a corporation's employee? In the age of EULA's, that test isn't as clear as it was, but it is perfectly clear that you can come into possession of copyrighted material without any kind of contract. Copyright limits what you can do with your possessions without your explicit or tacit agreement. Licenses can only grant freedoms. The GPL-style licenses seem to inhibit your freedom, but only because they offer a conditional freedom: you are granted the freedom to do this thing, but only if you also undertake to do that thing. All of this is without any agreement between the code author and the code user. Now here's a test of whether that is all clear: is an End User License Agreement a license?

by mjg59 15y ago

Karunamon 15y ago

Yes, but if someone offers GPL licensed software to you, they themselves are in violation of the GPL if they don't cough up the source code. I don't see how I as an end user couldn't bring an action against an entity for violating the terms of the agreement.

mjg59 15y ago
It's not a contract, so you can't use contract law against them. You're not a copyright holder, so you can't use copyright law against them. What kind of action are you expecting? Edited to add: I guess if they sold it to you as a GPLed work then you might have some recourse under advertising law, but even then I think you'd probably be limited to getting your money back - there's no way you can compel them to give you the source code.
- dthunt 15y ago
  You do however have legal recourse to ensure compliance (in the sense that you can demand they comply with their requirements under the license). If you're out for blood, contact the copyright holder.
  - mjg59 15y ago
    You can demand, but there are no circumstances under which they're obliged to comply. Even the copyright holder can't force that - the most they can do is win damages for infringement and prevent any further distribution.

chalst 15y ago

Quite. There's what used to be an easy test for whether you were bound by a contract: did you make an agreement with someone, someone's agent, or a corporation's employee? In the age of EULA's, that test isn't as clear as it was, but it is perfectly clear that you can come into possession of copyrighted material without any kind of contract. Copyright limits what you can do with your possessions without your explicit or tacit agreement. Licenses can only grant freedoms. The GPL-style licenses seem to inhibit your freedom, but only because they offer a conditional freedom: you are granted the freedom to do this thing, but only if you also undertake to do that thing. All of this is without any agreement between the code author and the code user. Now here's a test of whether that is all clear: is an End User License Agreement a license?