freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture

[Aryeh Friedman]

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:59 AM Ralf Mardorf via freebsd-questions <
freebsd-questions at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 10:12:16 -0400, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
> >And no GPL is not a binding contract because it fails the
> >"consideration" test of what constitutes a contract (i.e. no money
> >traded hands and thus no contract was formed... the user gave no
> >consideration).   See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract ("The
> >basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable
> >contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and
> >acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality" )
>
> "Is the GPL enforceable in law ?
>
> At least in Germany, based on our own experience: yes. In recent years,
> there have also been successful court cases in the United States. We
> see no evidence to believe it is not enforceable globally." -
> https://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq/ .
>

Not according to wikipedia which says it is an enforceable *LICENSE* and
*AGREEMENT* but it is not a contract.   FSF does not claim it is a contract
(they claim the opposite)  and with good reason it gives them and the
person who licensed stuff under a stronger case since it is a federal
(copyright infringement) and not a state issue.   Note in the US unlike
most countries the states (provinces) have widely varying laws and the one
court that found it to be a contract was using a non-standard commercial
code (not the Uniform Commercial Code used by a majority of states) thus it
is not clear how it applies to UCC states (or states with different
customized codes).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Legal_status


-- 
Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org