Subject: [Fwd: Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat]
From: simo <s@ssimo.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:29:12 -0400

-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Jim Thompson <jim@netgate.com>
To: simo <s@ssimo.org>
Cc: Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr>, fsb@crynwr.com
Subject: Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:19:33 -1000

(Once again, I can't post directly to fsb because Russ has decided to  
silence me.  This is a private reply, but you should feel free to  
forward it back to fsb, if you wish.)

---

There is probably a case to be made that the person entering into the  
contract via assent to the existence of Santa Claus was either a) a  
minor (or in the mental state of a minor) or b) incompetent to enter  
into the contract or c) understood the contract to be non-enforceable  
for this (or other) reasons.

The GPL was "invented" as a hack on copyright law, not contract law.   
Distribution is copying.

I agree that Corel's term(s) of distribution were likely a GPL  
violation.

Jim

On Apr 29, 2006, at 4:03 AM, simo wrote:

> On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 10:09 +0200, Bernard Lang wrote:
>> What about this situation :
>>
>>
>>      This software is licensed under the GPL.
>>      Click *HERE* to assent to the existence of Santa Claus
>>         and download the software.
>>
>> Did I sign a contract ?
>
> For the US law probably yes, as there is specific legislation (or  
> common
> law) if you ask assent.
> Does it mean it is always a contract?
> I do not think so, but then I am not a lawyer.
>
> I can say that in Italy for example there is strong concern about this
> point because for the Italian law "license" is not something that  
> exists
> in legal terms, so we end up trying to fit the GPL in so called-
> unilateral-contracts, but even this is difficult, because the law  
> there
> specify exactly which are the admissible unilateral-contracts, and the
> GPL seem to not fit any easily.
>
>> Anyone can distribute GPLed code, under any condition.
>> Corel made Linux available to people over 18 years old exclusively.
>>
>> so what  ?
>
> This was probably a violation :-)
> The GPL explicitly state that you cannot restrict distribution.
>
> Simo.