[pessimizer]

I'm pretty sure all contracts require an exchange, even if a token one. That's why there's a concept of a token payment. A contract without an exchange (a 1-sided contract) is a covenant.

A FOSS license is granting a right of use under a particular set of restrictions, and it is doing it through the means of voluntarily giving up the government-granted right to enforce copyright that the author is entitled to. But the customer is giving nothing. It can't be a contract. The violation of it only represents a loss for one side.

A license in exchange for payment is a different story.

[randomNumber7]

It can still be considered like an exchange when there is written: "If you use this software, then you agree to comply to the license". Im not sure though to be honest. I might depend on the law system or the mood of the judge.

[pessimizer]

To me, that's like saying, "You can have a glass of water, but you can't have my car" is a contract.

"Give me a dollar and you can have this glass of water" is a contract.

edit: and to be a tiny bit less glib, a license is where I give up rights I already have, under particular conditions that I dictate. If you choose not to abide by those conditions, the only thing that happens is that I regain the ability to use the rights that I already have. I don't gain any super-copyright powers, or a more powerful copyright.

[randomNumber7]

I know a farmer in a small village and they sell milk and cheese etc. There is no cashier, you take what you want and let the money there. It would still be breaking a contract if you dont...

[em-bee]

because you trade something for something else.

defining what the trade is when i download a GPL application is a bit trickier.

[_a_a_a_]

In the UK a transfer of ownership does need some token payment at least but a contract isn't that nor requires one (IA most definitely NAL).