|
From: | Tim Tyler |
Subject: | Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!? |
Date: | Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:52:38 GMT |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0a1 (Windows/20060724) |
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
*If* the user agreed to a contract by simply copying, the world would be full of court cases where SlimeSoft had included in the small print of its license agreement: "And by the act of copying this software, you hereby agree to sell all your worldly goods and deposit the proceeds in swiss bank account #xxxxxxxx." Users do not agree to *anything* by the act of copying something. The worst that can happen is that they can subsequently be sued for copyright violation - since the user can simply claim that they never bothered to read the license. [...]Suppose that value of "your worldly goods" is less than damages for copyright infringement. Why wouldn't you bring such license as a defense to claim of copyright infringement? I certainly would.
Right - but suppose that things are the other way around - and that SlimeSoft has to sue for copyright violation, and then live with whatever the court awards them for this evidently-terrible crime. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |