Re: Using non-GPL libraries in a GPL program

[rjack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> rjack <robjack@insightbb.com> writes:

> > > A unenforceable license is very useful, without a license, you cannot
> > > do anything.
>
> Well, here is a quote for you from the GPL:
>
>       9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
>
>       You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
>     run a copy of the Program.  Ancillary propagation of a covered work
>     occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
>     to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance.  However,
>     nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or
>     modify any covered work.  These actions infringe copyright if you do
>     not accept this License.  Therefore, by modifying or propagating a
>     covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
>
> A license you need not accept is not enforceable, obviously.  It is the
> choice of the recipient whether or not he wants to use the license.  If
> he does, he has to heed its terms.  If he doesn't, he is restricted to
> what copyright law allows him.

Sigh... The semantic maneuvering some individuals employ to deny that a 
license is a contract is simply amazing. Perhaps it would be helpful to 
observe the underlying legal and ontological foundations of "license".

Well, here is a quote for you from the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit:

"Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by 
ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi 
Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit 1995)

If you examine the ruling above you see "a license is a contract". 
Notice the existential "is"? [N.1] No amount of tortured verbiage will 
alter this fact -- that a LICENSE "is" a CONTRACT.

Now, all this smarmy word salad ("Ancillary propagation", "peer-to-peer 
transmission", "propogation") concerning contingent existence in 
paragraph 9 of the GPL is Moglen-Stallman blather.

Look to contract law. A necessary and sufficient condition that a 
license exist is that an enforceable I.P. contract exist.

It is really easy to repeat several times, "a license is a contract"...
"a license is a contract"..."a license is a contract". The word 
c-o-n-t-r-a-c-t will soon flow smoothly from your lips. A short time 
thereafter, you will be admired by your peers as a consummate professional!


[N.1] If you're William Jefferson Clinton this could depend on
what the meaning of "is" is.

Sincerely
Rjack :)

--- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101- 1332, 
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal 
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the 
relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v. 
Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals 
for the Seventh Circuit 2006) ---