[hiatus]

> Under US law, a license is different than a contract. The GPL and friends are very explicitly NOT contracts (in contrast to EULAs, which try to be).

Why are EULAs contracts and the GPL is not?

[gamblor956]

He's wrong.

Under U.S. law, a license is a contract. In fact, an EULA is an "end user license agreement."

The difference between a license like the AGPL and a normal contract is in how the contract is formed. Normally a contract requires explicit acceptance to be valid, but for licenses implicit acceptance is allowed, such as by using the licensed material after having been showed the license governing the use of that material.

[frognumber]

A few reasons:

1) A contract requires a meeting-of-the-minds around an agreement. For an EULA, you click [I agree].

2) A contract requires consideration. With an EULA, there is generally clear consideration exchanged.

3) It's called an "agreement" whereas the LGPL/GPL/AGPL is very careful never to do that or to ever say "agree"

4) the drafters stated it's not an agreement

... and so on. In other words, every effort is made into making EULAs act as contracts, and the opposite for FSF licenses.

More background: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

Excerpt for where to start reading: "This right to exclude implies an equally large power to license—that is, to grant permission to do what would otherwise be forbidden. Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits."