Re: TG3 firmware report...
Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > You cannot infer person A's intent in doing something merely by
> > assuming that it must be the same as persons B, C, and D.
> Well, of course you can. A lot of contracts are made this way (for
> example, if you buy something in a shop).
Actually, no. First, buying something in a shop doesn't necessarily
involve any contract at all; it's a sale, which can proceed other than
Second, the Uniform Commercial Code explicitly says things about
following customary practices, and does say that commercial contracts
are presumed to be following normal customary practices, so that such
imputation of intent works there.
But no, the UCC does not apply to copyright licensing.
And finally, it might be evidence for A's intent that they were
probably wanting what B, C, and D, wanted. I said that you can't get
there *merely* from that assumption, but there must be some additional
something to help it along. Otherwise, the inference doesn't go.
Moreover, companies are allowed to have deceptive copyright
statements; in fact, they do it all the time. Nearly every book or CD
you get has a deceptive copyright statement on it.