Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED
- To: Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net>
- Cc: Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org>, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED
- From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
- Date: 01 Nov 2002 10:55:21 -0800
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87hef1glwm.fsf@becket.becket.net>
- In-reply-to: <20021031201508.GD5526@netexpress.net>
- References: <20021029143150.GA8726@dat.etsit.upm.es> <20021029181154.GZ17459@deadbeast.net> <20021029195609.GA27424@dat.etsit.upm.es> <20021029212128.GF4866@netexpress.net> <20021030083858.GA15758@dat.etsit.upm.es> <20021030203804.GF15025@netexpress.net> <20021031081231.GB3299@dat.etsit.upm.es> <20021031172932.GA5424@dvdeug> <yahwunycwoo.fsf@pc-043.diku.dk> <20021031185407.GA832@rano.org> <20021031201508.GD5526@netexpress.net>
Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:
> And what is it if not a contract? It is not a "license" as issued by a
> regulatory body. Contract law governs all agreements between civil
> parties that aren't otherwise constrained by law.
It is a grant of permission, which is, in fact, legally called a
"license".
It isn't an "agreement between civil parties", which is why it isn't
covered by contract law, it's rather a grant of permission, which is a
different beast entirely.
Reply to: