Re: The QPL licence
Again, I must profess my limit knowledge here... but by including a choice of
law and choice of venue clause I begin to wonder if this licenses starts to
look and smell an awful lot like a contract. While I generally agree with
your statement, it seems awful fishy in this instance. The author is saying
"you can use my software but you must agree to these terms" and the user is
saying "I agree." Basic offer and acceptance... and while I know that
things are different with licenses, I wonder how far you can push the terms
before you engage in contract like behavior.
-Sean
On Sunday 25 April 2004 02:09 pm, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sean Kellogg <skellogg@u.washington.edu> writes:
> > This is just my two cents from a guy who reads debian-legal has never
> > commented before. If anyone knows some good case law that contradicts
> > what I've said, I'd be really interested to see it.
>
> But free licenses are not contracts: they are deeds, licenses, grants,
> but not contracts. So the protections which might apply if I were
> agreeing to a contract don't apply: the drafter is solely granting me
> permission, and I'm not paying anything at all for it, so I have very
> few rights beyond what he grants.
>
> -Brian
>
> --
> Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
--
Sean Kellogg
1st Year - UW Law School
c: 206.498.8207 e: skellogg@u.washington.edu
w: http://students.washington.edu/skellogg/ <-- UPDATED
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat everything
as if it were a nail."
-- Abraham Maslow
Reply to: