Is it possible to refuse an offered license?
<p>Sometimes, things that are made of legal fiction are held to operate as normal even when someone attempts to disobey them.</p>
<p>For example, I can browse a web site and agree to its terms, or I can not browse the web site, but it seems <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/92317/18089">I can't browse the web site but not form the TOS contract, even if I am willing to accept the consequences of not having permission.</a></p>
<p>Does this same principle apply to copyright law? If a license is attached to something saying that anyone may copy it provided that they pay a fee much larger than the damages for copyright infringement, and I copy it, can the licensor declare that I agreed to the license and therefore owe the fee? Or can I say I rejected the license and am only responsible for the damages?</p>
<p>Or similarly, can source code that is distributed to you and contains GPL code be considered to have automatically been licensed to you under the GPL? Or is it possible to receive code that <em>should have been</em> but still <em>is not actually</em> licensed to you under the GPL, because the distributor rejected the GPL and chose to commit copyright infringement instead?</p>

<p>Whether a contract relates to copyright vs traditional property rights is a red herring.</p>
<p>As explained in two existing Q&amp;As (very similar to your question, these were about whether one can chose to trespass instead of accepting a parking-lot contract, or an entrance fee):</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/92593/overriding-offered-contract-acceptance-methods-with-express-written-declaration/92600#92600">Overriding offered contract acceptance methods with express written declaration</a></li>
<li><a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/92399/legal-bindingness-validity-of-implicit-presumptively-entered-contracts-for-occup/92400#92400">Legal bindingness/validity of implicit/presumptively entered contracts for occupancy fees</a></li>
</ul>
<p>and this Q&amp;A about the <em>objective</em> rather than <em>subjective</em> analysis of contract formation:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/90788/does-contract-formation-require-subjective-meeting-of-the-minds">Does contract formation require subjective &quot;meeting of the minds&quot;?</a></li>
</ul>
<p>, what matters is whether you've done the thing that constitutes acceptance of the contract, and whether in the circumstances, the conduct that the offeror has deemed to be acceptance is the kind of conduct that can objectively convey acceptance.</p>
<p>You can refuse contractual obligations by not doing the act that the offeror has said would constitute acceptance.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>is it possible to receive code that should have been but still is not actually licensed to you under the GPL</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is definitely possible, but in this scenario your question is moot.</p>
<p>It doesn't matter to you whether the person who provided the code to you</p>
<p>(a) agreed to the GPL and then violated its terms (breach of contract)</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>(b) made copies without agreeing to the GPL (infringement of copyright).</p>
<p>In neither case was a license under GPL offered to you.  You cannot enforce the offender to offer you a license, because you are not a party to the contract requiring them to do so.</p>

united-states copyright licensing