Re: issues with the AGPL
Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> * Miriam Ruiz:
>
> > All that is for USA, right? Do you know whether it works that way in
> > other countries than USA, and probably UK, Canada and Australia too?
>
> There is no such thing as a unilateral contract in Germany.
Nor anywhere, AFAIK. The idea is not to enter a contract, but to
unilaterally grant permissions otherwise reserved. The common meaning of
“license” essentially means “permission”, after all.
> Over here, free software licenses are typically considered invitations
> to enter licensing contracts, according to the terms in those
> licenses.
That's a shame, since that's counter to (my unserstanding of) the
intention: to unilaterally grant license to someone who would not
otherwise have it.
> The net effect is still the same, I think. If you reject the offer,
> you haven't got a license.
No, that's not the case for a unilateral grant of license. There's no
offer being made, and therefore no agreement to be entered into; the
recipient doesn't have to agree to do anything to have the specific
permissions granted by the license terms.
However, any actions *not* licensed are outside the grant, and are
covered by relevant law.
--
\ “It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one |
`\ trifling exception, is composed of others.” —John Andrew Holmes |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: