Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!mcb
From: mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Apple/uSoft Court's "Memorandum of Decision and Order"
Keywords: "license"
Message-ID: <342@ncis.tis.llnl.gov>
Date: 3 Aug 89 19:28:08 GMT
References: <8146@hoptoad.uucp> <8180@hoptoad.uucp> <450@helios.prosys.se> <265@unmvax.unm.edu>
Organization: Postmodern Consulting, Pleasanton CA USA
Lines: 15

In <265@unmvax.unm.edu> mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) writes:
> [...] The case of a
> "General Public License" is interesting, as a GPL isn't really a
> license.  Note that a GPL is NOT a shrink wrap agreement.  A GPL is
> merely an extended copyright permissions statement worded like a
> license.

How so is the GPL not a license?  "License", in copyright law, is a
technical term meaning the grant by a copyright holder, to other(s), of
the right to do various things with the copyrighted work under certain
terms and conditions.  Copyright permission statements *are* licenses.

--
Michael C. Berch  
mcb@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb