Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 14 Oct 2018 21:35:15 +0000 | From | missingterms@redchan ... | Subject | The GPLv2 is not a contract, it is a revocable license. |
| |
The GPLv2 is not a contract, it is a revocable license.
Enjoy the read: http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf
(With full citations). (PDF attached)
Page 12 starts the relevant discussion. Page 16 gives the rundown on all the ways the GPL is not a contract.
Later there is a short gloss of state law promissory estopple doctrines, but remember: in the case of the linux kernel it, unlike other projects, omitted the "or any later version" codicil, and is only under version 2 of the GPL, which makes no promise of irrevocability by grantor.
(Note: The SFConservancy conflates clauses that clarify that if a licensee's license is automatically revoked for a GPL violation, that sub-licensees licenses are not-in-turn automatically revoked) (Additionally: Clause 0 of GPLv2 specifically defines the "you" in said clauses as referring to the licensee (not the grantor), so the SFConservancy's conflation is shown to be ever more disengenious) (Little more that a hope and a prayer to the wind)
So: Not a contract. Is a bare license akin to a property license. And there is no "irrevocable by grantor" promise in v2. .: Can be rescinded at will.
[unhandled content-type:application/pdf] | |