"Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't see how "contract issues are entirely moot". Certainly at > least the terms of the license must be interpreted to determine if > they are complied with. AFAIK copyright law does not deal with such > issues. Rather contract law has a long established tradition for > interpreting and defining unilateral "contracts". I would be > interested to see cites otherwise. I am talking U.S. law here but > would be interested in laws of other countries as well.
It's not a contract. It's a license. Your description of a long established tradition is entirely correct: it's the tradition of how to interpret grants of permission (which are operative in cases of copyright, trespass, and so forth). That tradition is *not* contract, and calling it "contract" again and again only serves to confuse the issue. > Also, I am not convinced that most "open source" licenses are not > contracts. I don't know about "most". I know about particular ones, and they aren't. > My view is that a good argument can be made that that a > licensee, in consideration for receiving the right to modify, > distribute, etc the code and in consideration for foregoing the right > to sue the licensor (limitation of liability) accepts the license > contract by modifying, distributing, etc. the code. Indeed if it were > otherwise, the limitation of liability would have no effect because > the public license model you propose is unilateral. The absence of any negotiation makes very clear that it isn't contract. The limitation of liability is defensible on entirely different grounds. > Well I think I know a little bit of law as an attorney. I hoped I was > providing useful information. I'd be happy to go away if you prefer. You seem out of your depth here. A tax attorney, for example, may be exceedingly good at his job and still be totally out of his depth when it comes to the details of the criminal law: a detective probably has a better knowledge of the elements of most serious crimes than does a tax attorney. I've been engaged in issues of free software IP law for over a decade, and I know the subject inside and out. And I'm not the only one on this list; there are many such. Thomas