Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
- From: Ben Finney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:55:27 +1100
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <3xK$OkCBV4CJFwrR@thewolery.demon.co.uk>
"Anthony W. Youngman" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> In message <email@example.com>, Sean Kellogg
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes
> >On Wednesday 29 October 2008 06:45:19 pm Ben Finney wrote:
> >> […] one can't be held to an “agreement” that one had no option
> >> to view or negotiate before the stated condition occurs.
> >Sure they can. If you don't agree to the terms of the license, then
> >you don't have the right to have a copy of the work. In fact, you
> >didn't even have the right to make the copy in the first place.
Yet these conditions are presented on works where, often, the
recipient *didn't* make the copy; they received it from some other
party through sale or other distribution, and the terms were *not*
offered as a condition of sale but instead discovered afterward (if at
> >Now, I'm not claiming you can agree to something you haven't seen,
> >but if you DO NOT agree, then you don't have the right to have it
> >in the first place
You seem to be claiming that such conditions can be applied
retroactively: after legitimately obtaining the work and agreeing to
all conditions presented at that time, one can then be held to an
*extra* “agreement” that one was unaware of?
> Reductio ad absurdam ...
This is another argument, yes. Though, at this point, I suspect Sean
(or someone else with legal experience) will point out the common
fallacy of assuming the law operates logically :-)
\ “The errors of great men are venerable because they are more |
`\ fruitful than the truths of little men.” —Friedrich Nietzsche |