The drifted SCO thread has opened a new arena. "IS there a place for a de facto IP freedom realm"

[Bradley Hook]

A license effectively creates an implied contract when you use the 
object under license. A contract is any legally binding and enforceable 
agreement, and you must agree to the license (thereby making it binding 
and enforceable) in order to use the licensed work. Arguing that you 
have not entered into a contract effectively states that you are 
violating the rights of the original owner.

Restated: The *license* is not a contract, but agreeing to the license 
creates an implied contract.

In any jurisdiction where IP issues will ever be handled in a manner 
reasonable for these purposes, IP rights are of real value. The GPL 
grants you the right to propagate your derivative (an IP right), but 
only if you permit the original author (and others) the same rights of 
propagation (the reciprocal IP right). If you argue that IP rights are 
of no value, then we might as well toss the whole OSS community out the 
window.

~Bradley

Monty J. Harder wrote:
> A license isn't a contract.  There is no place for you to sign the GPL to
> agree to it.  It's just that if you don't accept the GPL, you don't have
> legal permission to do what it licenses you to do.
> 
> On 9/27/07, Jon Pruente <jdpruente at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Another problem is that for a license to be binding in court it must
>> function as a contract.
>