&gt; GPL ... it&#x27;s a bare copyright license, not a contract<p>Yes, the GPL is a licence... <i>for redistribution</i>. As buyer of a product containing code licensed under the GPL, the GPL <i>is not involved</i>, though there is a recursive <i>offer</i> of a license should I want to <i>redistribute</i> the code. I can ignore the offer of redistribution license and use product any way I want (provided I do not <i>copy</i> it). This is even stated in the GPL itself (GPLv3, section 9).<p>&gt; Licensor has the legal right to prevent you from taking Action A, e.g., under the copyright laws.<p>That&#x27;s entirely my point - I am not making <i>copies</i> by using the software. I&#x27;m not even making copies reselling my copy (provided I actually actually transfer the work; keeping a &quot;backup&quot; would be a violation). I have zero need for a license.<p>Conflating use with redistribution has been a popular scam in recent years, in an effort to apply copyright enforcement tools to mere use. While software companies would like to control how their product is merely <i>used</i>, their rights end at the first sale.<p>&gt; copyright license, not a contract<p>Yes, I&#x27;m very familiar with the difference.<p>&gt; unilateral contract ... browser-wrap<p>Sure, provided all the elements are there. I have nothing against actual contracts. These are not involved when I walk into a shop and buy a widget with firmware in it. The only transaction is: pay cash, receive widget.<p>Some software is sold under a proper contract, of course. Most things with software in them (and a lot of software) are sold plainly as a simple exchange.<p>&gt; That&#x27;s not a universally-held view in the courts<p>Key phases in my post: &quot;post-purchase&quot;, &quot;inside-the-shrinkwrap&quot;. Throwing legal papers at someone <i>after</i> consideration has already been exchanged is at best a <i>new</i> offer, which the customer has no obligation to accept.<p>Yes, there have been a few badly argued cases on this topic. Contracts are not supposed to be a &quot;gotcha&quot;&#x2F;surprise; a &quot;meeting of the minds&quot; (mutual agr4eement) is a requir4ed element. Therefor, I find it hard to believe that, in the long run, undermine hundreds of years of contract law by allowing extra obligations only seen post-purchase.