[davidgerard]

> states, in shrink-wrap fashion, that use of the software without an explicit commercial license binds the user to the GNU GPL

Not quite technically!

The way it works is: you have no permission by default under copyright. The only permission you have to copy is the GPL. If you obey it, fine. If not, you're just violating copyright like any other copyright violation.

This can be an important point: it's a license, not a contract.

It may be unfortunate that the judgement uses the word "contract", presumably because that's the word the defendant used.

[iplaw]

A license is a contract. I don't understand the artificial distinction between the two, specifically in reference to GNU GPL.

http://www.technollama.co.uk/a-licence-or-a-contract

[Spivak]

Because, as your article points out, in the US there is a requirement for consideration. Sure, the GPL might be a contract somewhere outside of the US but who cares? The ruling was in California.

[LoSboccacc]

I like how correct comments like yours around here every time gpl comes up are downvoted to oblivion. shows there's load work to do from the eff to educate people at wtf gpl is

[qb45]

Well, that's what happens when people use wrong terminology and instead of explaining or suggesting fixes you just go "nope, you are wrong, every X is Y because Z says so". And I didn't downvote this post, btw.

On a tangential note, there's also a load of work to do from somebody to educate you wtf EFF is and why it doesn't care about the GPL and who actually does care ;)

[cygx]

there's load work to do from the eff

FSF