undefined | Better HN

0 pointsandrewmutz10y ago0 comments

Why would the GPL not be considered a commercially negotiated contract?

0 comments

_rpd10y ago

If the TPP is ratified, would it be worth updating the GPL to say "You agree that this is a commercially negotiated contract"?

tzs10y ago

The FSF says that GPL is not a contract [1] [2] [3].

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/200104_seminar.html

[2] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

[3] https://www.fsf.org/news/wallace-vs-fsf

1 more reply

cookiecaper10y ago

Probably because it usually doesn't involve any commercial, that is, monetary, transaction, and it doesn't involve any negotiation; it's just slapped on by someone you've never talked to. How would it be considered a commercially negotiated contract?

andrewmutzOP10y ago

A contract doesn't need to have any money change hands, as long as both sides get something out of the deal (have "consideration"). The GPL does have this as one side gets the right to use source code and the other side gets guarantees on how that source code will be used.

Also, being slapped on is not a problem for a contract. We interact with adhesion contracts every day that are slapped on to things. When you accept a valet ticket for parking it has a contract on the back that you are assenting to by using the service. No negotiation occurs and adhesion contracts are valid contracts.

Since "commercially negotiated" is not a term of art, why do we think the GPL is not one?

cookiecaper10y ago

I'm not saying the GPL is an invalid contract; I agree that it is a valid contract. I gave reasons why it may not be considered "commercially negotiated". If they just meant any valid contract, they would've just said "contract" instead of "commercially negotiated contract".

briandear10y ago

It's a Contract of Adhesion. Adhesion contracts are, by definition not negotiated.

fineman10y ago

Not all non-negotiable contacts are a a contract of adhesion. Stores will rarely negotiate (in N.A.), for example.

CoAs require a weaker party, who has no leverage, and it seemingly need to be for a necessity (as part of the "no choice but to agree").

The GPL is an offer, but in no way precludes authors from accepting other terms for use of their work.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

_rpd10y ago

If the TPP is ratified, would it be worth updating the GPL to say "You agree that this is a commercially negotiated contract"?

tzs10y ago

The FSF says that GPL is not a contract [1] [2] [3].

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/200104_seminar.html

[2] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

[3] https://www.fsf.org/news/wallace-vs-fsf

1 more reply

cookiecaper10y ago

andrewmutzOP10y ago

Since "commercially negotiated" is not a term of art, why do we think the GPL is not one?

cookiecaper10y ago

briandear10y ago

It's a Contract of Adhesion. Adhesion contracts are, by definition not negotiated.

fineman10y ago

Not all non-negotiable contacts are a a contract of adhesion. Stores will rarely negotiate (in N.A.), for example.

CoAs require a weaker party, who has no leverage, and it seemingly need to be for a necessity (as part of the "no choice but to agree").

The GPL is an offer, but in no way precludes authors from accepting other terms for use of their work.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse