Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet (galactus@stack.nl):
> > You said in your previous message that you "had in mind the
> > overwhelming majority of jurisdictions that have copyright
> > regimes in line with the Berne Convention and that lack such
> > additions." I interpreted this to mean that you thought that
> > the BC was somehow relevant to Andreas' comment that in
> > Germany you always make a contract, even with GPL.
> >
> > So now I am curious why you brought up the BC at all?
>
> Copyright regimes around the world tend to be more similar than
> different in large part because they've mostly been brought into harmony
> with the Berne Convention. I had thought this was a familiar notion.
True. However, since we were discussing whether a license
necessarily is a contract, it seems strange to bring up
a copyright treaty that has nothing to do with contracts.
> > There are of course other elements, such as the capacity of the
> > parties, the manner of making the offer and the acceptance, whether
> > offer or acceptance was made under duress or under wrong impressions,
> > and so on.
>
> OK. If you're going to be so picky as to object to a general
> observation as having exceptions in a few jurisdictions (especially
> when those exceptions are known from recent discussion), then I'd
> suggest you should yourself be careful to speak precisely.
As the context of the discussion was Andreas' comment about
the GPL always being a contract in Germany, it seemed logical
to me people would understand I was talking about that. I will
be sure to be more precise in the future.
Anyway, I think the only thing we can conclude is that it is
in some countries possible for the GPL to be interpreted as
a contract, and in some countries it is not.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Reply to: