On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:26:27PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: >> Licenses are primarily founded upon Contract Law, not Copyright Law. >> Copyright Law is what grants you the rights to a work which you then >> exchange or give away using a License or Contract. Contract Law is >> what allows you to establish a legally binding document to exchange >> or give away those rights or interests. > > http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html , at least, > disagrees with you. It's true that this is somewhat of an open question, especially involving consideration as it applies to Open Source and Free Software licenses. I should have been more clear that I was refering to licenses in the general sense.[1] (A rather trivial argument can be made that the mere act of using the software provides consideration to the licensor by promoting the software and the licensor...) You are absolutely correct, though, in pointing out that Copyright Law plays a part in the rights that are granted to the public without a License, and why it may be difficult (I hope impossible!) to curtail those rights through a License. Don Armstrong 1: I hadn't really even considered the validity of a license, either through the normal 5 tests, or the unconscionable portion of the UCC. -- Guns Don't Kill People. *I* Kill People. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpApfRU6NDj4.pgp
Description: PGP signature