On Fri, 05 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote: > In fact, most open source / free software licences (for example) have > no dependency whatsoever on contract law, and apply in accordance > with the mechanisms of copyright law regardless of whether a contract > forms between any parties involved. I'm at a loss to find where copyright law specifies the terms and forms of an agreement or license. No where is any form of license mentioned in Title 17, save section 203, which only deals with the termination of licenses. > Which is a good thing, since otherwise there would be serious > problems in the areas of privity and (arguably) consideration. See other messages in this thread in regards to consideration. [I'm not all together sure why privity would play a role, as only the copyright holder should be able to sue a third party under the terms of the contract... perhaps I'm missing something here.] >> Licenses obey the forms of either a contract or a lease or they are >> not legally valid. > > That is false. Please read, for example, GNU GPLv2. It has been argued that the GPL follows the forms of a legal agreement, or contract between two parties. If it doesn't, from which common law cases or statute does it draw its legal authority? Don Armstrong -- N: Why should I believe that?" B: Because it's a fact." N: Fact?" B: F, A, C, T... fact" N: So you're saying that I should believe it because it's true. That's your argument? B: It IS true. -- "Ploy" http://www.mediacampaign.org/multimedia/Ploy.MPG http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpDD02iEl2ZD.pgp
Description: PGP signature