[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:03:39 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack <> writes:

Tim Smith wrote:
In article <4980a453$0$21838$>,
 "amicus_curious" <> wrote:
What is at issue today, though, is the nature of such "default
copyright rules".  If there is no fee charged to use the work or to
redistribute the work, the copyright can be ignored unless the
author can show some degree of harm to himself.
Where did you get that idea?  Not from the copyright statute, nor
from the case law.

Actually the GPL requires licensing and distribution of the source
code to "all third parties" and no benefit (consideration) is intended
for either contracting party (parties in privity) to the GPL agreement
(try reading the GPL sometime).

Huh?  What did you not understand about:

      When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
    price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that
    you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and
    charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can
    get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use
    pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do
    these things.


      You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you
    convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.


    d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
    place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
    Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
    further charge.

Try reading the GPL sometime.

WTF does any of that have to do with the GPL being a bilateral contract with "all third parties" receiving the consideration?

"In general, a waiver of any legal right at the request of another party is a sufficient consideration for a promise."; HAMER v. SIDWAY
124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256.

"In addition, under contract law, a contract is supported by consideration even if the consideration flows solely to a third party. See Mencher v. Weiss, 114 N.E.2d at 181(“[I]t is fundamental that a benefit flowing to a third person or legal entity constitutes a sufficient consideration for the promise of another.”); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 71, cmt. e (1981)."
In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd., 326 B.R. 240 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005)

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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