Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> So strip away the cruft and tell me: what do you take seriously here?
Earlier, I didn't have the time for this, but so I'd like to come back
to it. Here's
some of the more pertinent aspects of what I take seriously:
I do believe that courts and and will construe copyright licenses
in contract terms, if the specifics of the case dictate.
I also am convinced that the scope set by the license is extremely
significant in such cases.
Actually, many of the things you've said I consider relevant, if
you strip away the assertions that these things must always apply
in all cases.
So what does that really mean?
For example, breach of contract when what's being exchanged
is relief from irreparable harm might be viewed as too high of
a standard in cases where the licensee is not in a position to
offer this relief -- in these cases some lesser standard might
be used in its place, and breach of contract would not hold.
Note that if the court chooses to apply some "lesser
standard" doesn't mean that the license is useless --
instead it means that the license is too narrow.
Of course, to the degree that the licensee is prepared to
offer this relief, the court can construe it as granted.
--
Raul
Reply to: