Dear John, You make my point for me. If two parties enter into an agreement, the terms of which are written down and signed, then the agreement is only in force until one party contests the agreements legality. When the dis-agreeing party stops honoring the agreement, who enforces it? The agrieved party must seek a court to issue a ruling as to whether the agreement is enforcable. Until a court issues a ruling the agreement is simply a "Gentelmans Bargain" and no govt agency is going to enforce it. Once a court has ruled then it is possible for a govt agency to enforce it. Note: 'possible', even with a favorable court ruling most govt agencies *may* legaly decline to enforce it. Legal scholars have questioned the enforcablity of the GPL on several grounds. The most troubling aspect of the GPL? There is no 'consideration' exchanged as part of the transaction. Read the GPL itself; there is no mention of the exchange of consideration. Consideration is at the heart of most contract law. Even the US Supremes have ruled that without the exchange of consideration there can be no binding contract. The money you pay to a company for their distro is not relevant; the GPL itself specifies NO exchange of consideration. When I was employed at a research lab the company paid us "One US Dollar" as 'good and valuable consideration' for the right to IP we produced that the company patented; even though our employment contracts specified that our ideas belonged to the company. The payment was a ceremony witnessed and attested to. The legal principal of consideration is a part of the foundation of contract law; sensable people and organizations always adhere to the exchange. IMHO ................ PeterB On Friday 16 May 2003 10:25, John Pettigrew wrote:
In a previous message, Peter B Van Campen wrote:
The GPL has NEVER been tested in court. This means that until a judge ( and even appellate judges) has ruled on the legality of the GPL, it is just a 'nice agreement' between agreeing parties.
Not true. The GPL is a licence agreement that is legally binding on all parties to it - unless and until it is successfully challenged in court. Your explanation suggests that any contract is invalid unless proved in court, whereas the true situation is that any contract is valid unless proved invalid in court. Which is why people take contracts to court - to get out of restrictions that they feel are unfair or illegal.
John -- John Pettigrew Headstrong Games john@headstrong-games.co.uk Fun : Strategy : Price http://www.headstrong-games.co.uk/ Board games that won't break the bank Fields of Valour: 2 Norse clans battle on one of 3 different boards
-- -- Proud to use SuSE since 5.2 Loving using SuSE 8.2 MyBlog http://vancampen.org/blog/? --