Forwarding for those interested in intellectual property law. I'm nowhere near being an expert on this subject, but this case seems interesting for those of us who work with materials which are licensed under the GPL. Pine -------- Original message --------From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)" nemowiki@gmail.com Date: 8/1/17 6:54 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: US court declares GPL is a contract http://www.technollama.co.uk/us-court-declares-gpl-is-a-contract :

[...]

In a strong declaration that online open source licences are contracts, the court declares:

“Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s reliance on the unsigned GNU     GPL fails to plausibly demonstrate mutual assent, that is, the     existence of a contract. Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to     the complaint, provides that the Ghostscript user agrees to its     terms if the user does not obtain a commercial license. Plaintiff     alleges that Defendant used Ghostscript, did not obtain a commercial     license, and represented publicly that its use of Ghostscript was     licensed under the GNL GPU. These allegations sufficiently plead the     existence of a contract.”

_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l