Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:

> > > > The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't
> > > > bound himself by contract

> The owner gets, if nothing else, publicity.  This is something that
> people pay big money for.

But that is not a legal part of the promise (you can copy my code if
you promise to be public about it), so I doubt it is legally relevant.

Obviously, having a *reason* to promise something is not enough to
bind you to the promise in common-law jurisdictions. (I deduce this
from the reasoning that nobody promises anything without having a
reason do to so, and if the reason itself is considered consideration,
the consideration theory would be meaningless).

-- 
Henning Makholm                   "The great secret, known to internists and
                         learned early in marriage by internists' wives, but
               still hidden from the general public, is that most things get
         better by themselves. Most things, in fact, are better by morning."