Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
> On 5/17/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Anyways, I don't really care whether or not you can find a conflict
> > between some perhaps irrelevant text and the definition you've
> > asserted -- I want to see some citation that leads me to believe
> > that the distinction you've asserted is correct.
On 5/18/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey, you were the one who claimed that the assertion "a license is a
> provision in a contract" conflicted with the cases cited in my
> previous e-mail. I repeat, what conflict did you have in mind,
> exactly?
I did? I can't find that assertion.
Maybe you're talking about this exchange (text cut down
and paraphrased.for readability):
R: GPL is a license or a license agreement
M: No. License is a provision in a contract
R: Could you provide a cite? That conflicts with [what I know]
> Does it help if I concede that sometimes a judge uses the word
> "license" to refer to the whole agreement, not just the provision
> granting certain rights from licensor to licensee?
Yes, that helps in the sense that it more closely corresponds
with reality as I know it.
> Would you consider conceding, in return, that you can't find
> any court decision that applied some legal theory other than
> contract in order to analyze the scope and effect of a license,
> and it's not for lack of trying?
No, I will not.
Huston v. La Cinq Cass. civ. 1re (28 May 1991). is an
example of a court decision that applied some legal theory
other than contract in order to analyze the scope and
effect of a license.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: