Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia
Quoting Don Armstrong (don@donarmstrong.com):
> The forms of the license are formed and founded in Contract Law.
You are mistaken. There is nothing about the described situation that
requires or suggests a contract.
In fact, most open source / free software licences (for example) have no
dependency whatsoever on contract law, and apply in accordance with the
mechanisms of copyright law regardless of whether a contract forms
between any parties involved. Which is a good thing, since otherwise
there would be serious problems in the areas of privity and (arguably)
consideration.
> Contract Law is what enables you to make such a legaly binding
> agreement.
That is irrelevant to the question. Licences based in copyright law do
not require an "agreement".
> Licenses obey the forms of either a contract or a lease or they are
> not legally valid.
That is false. Please read, for example, GNU GPLv2.
> The specific rights that can be restricted may be curtailed by
> Copyright Law, Constitutional Law, and/or a myriad of other sections
> of US Law.
That is correct but irrelevant to the question.
> Hopefully that's clear now.
Clear but incorrect. Not that I can fault you for anything other than
refusal to look at the specifics on account of preconception: Yours is
a very common mistake among those new to open-source licensing.
--
Cheers, Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
Reply to: