Re: IMAPD license problem
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:48:34PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Under a provision of contract law valid at least within the US, that's not
> > quite true. If the clause is ambiguous, any reasonable meaning you as
> > licensee may derive (of course a court will determine whether or not the
> > language COULD be construed that way) is valid. That's certainly no
> > guarantee, but it's about as close as you're ever going to get with
> > anything if someone starts talking lawsuits.
>
> I'm not intimately familiary with US law, but does that principle
> really apply when the licencee is in bad faith (as would clearly
> be the case here - given that we *know* how UW interprets their
> license, we cannot just decide to select another meaning, at least
> not unless we have actually acted upon our own reading before we
> learnt about UW's)?
I'd assume so. Possibly incorrectly, however the point is that you try to
do something and the licensor says "you can't!", but the language doesn't
say that you can't or actually says that you can ....
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
* Knghtbrd assigns 3 to Chris
* variable wonders who else is named chris besides me
<Knghtbrd> variable - you. =>
* Knghtbrd waits for variable to dramatically say "I feel SO used!"
<variable> Knghtbrd: :)
* variable ++
<variable> :)
Reply to: