[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?

From: Tim Tyler
Subject: Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:34:36 GMT
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0a1 (Windows/20060724)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

An intellectual property license is a contract. In re: Aimster Copyright 
> 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th Cir. 2003) ("If a breach of contract (and a copyright license
is just a type of contract) . . . ");  see also McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, 
> 67 F.3d 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("Whether express or implied, a license is a
contract 'governed by ordinary principles of state contract law'").

"A license is governed by the laws of contract."

But feel free to believe that the entire US federal judiciary is just a
bunch of narrow-minded fools in denial of Moglen's genius and that they
> all should go and keep taking SFLC's seminars until they finally get his
> "not a contract" theory.

Users can argue that they never agreed to the terms of any
license - and normally the copyright holder cannot prove otherwise.

If you want to view licenses as a type of contract, they are
a special type of contract where there is usually no evidence
that one party has signed or otherwise agreed to the terms -
and they can always use that in their defense if they need to.

There are many other differences from a regular contract - many of
them to do with the extent of damages that may be awarded.
 |im |yler  Remove lock to reply.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]