| You know, I get sick of FUD, and this is a topic
I wrote about back in 2003.
You can
read it
again, since you claim to have been here since
then. If you
really had been, you'd have read
it and your questions would have been
answered
years ago. I get sick of people pretending too,
by the way.
What
you wrote is wrong, period. A license is
a permission to do something that
otherwise you
couldn't do. The licensor keeps ownership but
says you can do X
anyway with his possession, with
whatever terms there might be. It can be
verbal.
If I invite you to my house for dinner, you have
a license to enter my
house. If I call the police
and accuse you of trespassing, your defense is
that
you had a license, namely my verbal invitation.
It matters because
contract law violation are
handled in state courts, which the antiGPL
folks
tried to say for years and years was the way it
would be. Perhaps you've
notice that in fact when
there have been GPL litigation, it has been in
federal
courts, based on copyright infringement.
It has never been about contract. So
your
theory dies on the reality principle.
I could go on as to all the ways
you are wrong, but
why bother? I only bothered so others are not
deceived. As
to other countries, why do you
think the GPL was updated? To make sure
it would
work in other places.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
