Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet (galactus@stack.nl):
> > The question whether a copyright license necessarily is a contract has
> > nothing to do with the Berne Convention.
>
> I'm sure you'll have noticed that I didn't say it did.
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?
> > If I make an offer and you accept it, we've got a contract.
>
> You're saying there are _no_ other required elements of contract
> formation under German law? That seems very difficult to believe.
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.
However I was addressing the specific point of consideration - under
German law, as well as under most other civil law codes, no
consideration is necessary. Hence my next sentence: "Even if I get
nothing from you in return."
Let's say I offer to give (donate) you a painting. You have
to do nothing but accept it. I do not ask anything in return.
Assuming all elements other than consideration are in order,
is there a contract under US law?
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Reply to: