freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture

Aryeh Friedman aryeh.friedman at
Sat Apr 18 15:41:45 UTC 2020

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

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).

Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer,

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list