Re: conquer relicensing
"Arnoud Engelfriet" <email@example.com> wrote in message
[🔎] 20061010061335.GA8082@stack.nl">news:[🔎] 20061010061335.GA8082@stack.nl...
Michael Poole wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet writes:
> However I didn't see a signature in the text file.
> Only the guy's name.
At least in the US, the relevant law (why I mentioned "affirmative
acts") is what make click-through agreements binding -- the act of
clicking is the user's electronic "signature". My thought is that his
writing out of that paragraph would also suffice to show affirmative
I'm not sure. The statute calls for "signed by the owner",
but not to show assent to an agreement. It's a one-sided
statement that has to serve as evidence that the copyright
has transferred. I can see how typing in my name could be
construed as evidence of my acceptance of your offer. But
if a statute explicitly calls for "signed", wouldn't something
like a proper PGP signature be called for?
I believe the only real requirement is that the "mark" was
made with the intention of acting like a signature.
The patent office makes use of this law for e-filing, with the signature
any text between two slashed placed in a special text box (IIRC).
The problem is that sometimes it is unclear if a mark was intended to be a
This problem even exists in the analog world. A name written on a document
the owner of that name may be an autograph and not a signature.
If the wiritng was located on a signature line, then it is presumably a
but in other cases it can be hard to tell.
Even when something is clearly a signature (like a PGP signature) it can
be unclear as to the meaning of the signature. Does the signature mean "I
(as in acceptance of a contract), does it mean "I have seen this", does it
"I wrote this", does it mean "I endorse this"? Does it mean more than one of
I think you can see the problem.