Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:1969 trial.misc.legal.software:79
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,trial.misc.legal.software
Subject: Re: Enforcability of a License
Message-ID: <12170:Nov723:55:2290@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 90 23:55:22 GMT
References: <9011060500.AA01783@wubios.wustl.edu>
Organization: IR
Lines: 12

In article <9011060500.AA01783@wubios.wustl.edu> david@WUBIOS.WUSTL.EDU (David J. Camp) writes:
> Except for
> the fact that the "Permissions and Restrictions for Copying" is
> called a "License", there is nothing in the law as I understand
> it that suggests that a contract exists.

The fact that it is called a license is enough to make it a license.
Sorry, but if you misuse legal terms in a legal document, you deserve
what you get. I also question your implication that Stallman actually
intended the GNU Public License to not be a license.

---Dan