Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!rsiatl!jgd
From: jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: Which GPL applies?
Message-ID: <4326@rsiatl.UUCP>
Date: 15 Oct 90 20:57:50 GMT
References: <2058@sixhub.UUCP> <4196@lib.tmc.edu>
Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun works facility)
Lines: 49

jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <2058@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) asks the
>musical question:
>>Which GPL applies to programs which say that they are
>>copyright under the conditions of the GPL?

>The GPV addresses this question itself. 


Acutally a pundit could argue that NONE of them apply.  Not only is the 
whole concept of a unilaterial "license" contract not signed or accepted
by both parties subject to a great deal of legal challenge [1], I believe
the Duck Defense would apply here.  (Duck Defense - "If it quacks like a
duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, you can call it a chicken
but it's still a duck")  In this case, the giving away of the source and
calling it "free" sure makes it look like a duck of the public domain
variety to me, FSF's attempt to quibble about the definition of "free"
aside. 

But hey, the debate serves to fill up all those empty bit slots in my
Telebits.  I think they'd get lonely if they didn't handle 50 mb/day :-)

[1]  If one wants to argue that one has "accepted" a license by virtue of
opening the package or using the code in the case of GNU, then another
can follow that same logic thread and say that the provider of the 
license "accepts" any unilateral changes I want to make to the contract
before I "accept" it.  If the provider argues that my signature is not
necessary to validate my acceptance of the contract, I can argue that
his signature is not necessary to validate HIS acceptance of MY changes.
And remember that contract law provides that a contract will be construed
AGAINST the side that wrote the contract.

[Note to GNU zealots - To save rehashing the old arguments for the 
Nth (where N approaches infinity) time, I'll state that I support the
general concept of FSF, that is that source should always be available
and preferably free.  What I reject is the concept that anyone can
dictate what I do with MY code, a contract notwithstanding.  To that
end I consider the GPL to be interesting reading in the same vein as
"Red Storm Rising" - realistic sounding but in reality fiction.]

John


-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC  | We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congress
Radiation Systems, Inc. | than we can prostitution on pimps.  Both simply
Atlanta, Ga             | provide broker services for their customers.
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd|  - Dr. W Williams |                **I am the NRA**