Hacker News Reader

Comment by kazinator | Hacker News Reader

If so, those receivers probably have to pay for something. You can't have a contract without exchange of value, right?

So that is to say, if I sell you some hardware-software package where the software is based on GPL code, then I paid for that software too, and so we are in a contract, part and parcel of which is the content of the GPL.

Suppose I sell you just the hardware, and you download and install the GPLed software separately from that. My sales agreement doesn't mention the existence of that software at all. Then there can be no contract there; that's just some free stuff you got somewhere. Perhaps that somewhere was my own server, where I prepared the images, but that is neither here nor there.

View on HN

> You can't have a contract without exchange of value, right?

Yes. But, generally speaking, that thing of value doesn't have to be money. You could have a perfectly good contract where I get to use your software in exchange for agreeing to your terms, since both (the use of the software, and the commitment to comply with the terms) are valuable.

[Hopefully I'm stating the obvious here but, this is not legal advice. It's a general observations about U.S. law, and does not necessarily apply to any particular situation.]

That hasn't really held up in court in the past. T&C sections on installs of software and click-through "I agree" buttons have routinely been struck down.

You’re making a distinct legal point

That’s a different issue. The problem there (to generalize wildly) is whether both parties actually had an intent to enter into an agreement. That’s a distinct legal requirement from the need for consideration. But I agree that GP’s scenario may suffer from the same kind of problem.

> You can't have a contract without exchange of value, right?

IANAL, but I believe a contract is binding once a party has made some undertaking in relation to it (eg if you order bespoke goods from me, the contract is enforceable once I start working on them, or when you pay for them).

Training staff in the use of some software could be ruled a relevant undertaking.

OK, but in these cases, the contract itself spells out the this-for-that. The actual exchange of this for that doesn't have to commence for the contract to be binding; but without it being spelled out in the contract, it's not a contract.

E.g. we can't sign a document which says I will mow your lawn every Wednesday, April to October and call it a contract. It's missing the compensation clauses, so it's saying the mowing will be free of charge. The GPL is one-sided in that it spells out that some receiving user's rights are to be upheld in such and such a ways, without requiring that user to lift a finger. It's like the free lawn-mowing document in that sense.

But, obviously, that part of it will come from some larger umbrella contract whereby the user is sold the software. Those parts of the GPL which resemble contract clauses should be effectively absorbed into that sales contract. According to the larger contract, the user paid for the software, and so the counterparty is bound by the GPL clauses contractually. (Or so it would seem is the court decision here.)

I doubt that the court decision means that if you give someone a Debian DVD-ROM at a party (let's pretend for a second people still do that) you are now obliged to do additional things for them by a contract.

> I doubt that the court decision means that if you give someone a Debian DVD-ROM at a party (let's pretend for a second people still do that) you are now obliged to do additional things for them by a contract.

Civil law is meaningless without a willingness to engage in litigation; you aren't obliged to do additional things because nobody would spend money that way. As a result, I think this example muddies the waters rather than clarifying anything.

The claim here is that SFC is a third-party beneficiary of the alleged contract between the software creator and Visio. A third-party beneficiary can sue even though it is a non-party to the contract. (e.g., if Alice pays Bob to paint Charlie's house, then Charlie can sue Bob if Bob doesn't paint the house.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com