Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia
Quoting Don Armstrong (don@donarmstrong.com):
[USA Copyright Act:]
> It lists the four ways in which a copyright holder has the exclusive
> right to distribute a work. Leasing is the type of distribution
> typically considered for software. Leases follow the forms of Contract
> Law.
>
> What other type of distribution are we talking about here?
Your implicit assumption that methods of distribution of a copyrighted
work must be enumerated specifically in the Copyright Act in order to be
lawful is blatantly absurd, and I do not accept it. I have now said
that twice.
> If the license does not meet the conditions of a contract, the license
> is invalid, and any grants of permision contained within the license
> are null and void.
That is the same non-sequitur as it was in your last message. You are
repeating yourself.
> Of course. The entire point here is that the granting of permisions
> merely follows the forms of Contract Law. Nothing more.
No, it does not follow the forms of contract law. There is (typically) no
acceptance conveyed to the licensor, for one thing. Moreover, you are
ignoring my basic point that the question of contract formation is
irrelevant to the mechanism by which the specified licences operate.
> Since nothing in Copyright Law (or any other segment of law that I'm
> aware of) restricts the rights you can give away, Contract Law allows
> you to create a legally binding agreement to give away those rights
> subject to conditions.
Although _that_ statement may also be true, it is irrelevant to the
preceding discussion: There need not _be_ formation of a contract for
copyright law to apply, and for copyright-based licences such as GPLv2
and the BSD licence to apply though that law. (Claimed exception of
German law noted again in passing.)
--
Cheers, "I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate
Rick Moen those who do. And, for the people who like country music,
rick@linuxmafia.com denigrate means 'put down'." -- Bob Newhart
Reply to: