Alexander Terekhov wrote:
"A copyright license is a contract like any other contract"
We say that open licenses are not contracts because their distinguishing feature is that they are a one-way grant from the copyright holder to anyone who wishes to meet the conditions of the license, and unlike contracts, there is no negotiated agreement between the parties. The case you cite involves a negotiated copyright license between Microsoft and Apple. Of course that kind of a license is the same as a contract. But that's different, and the appeals court in Jacobson v. Katzer understood this and made the distinction in its findings: <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License are enforceable copyright conditions... Your incessant quoting of "A copyright license is a contract like any other contract" is as stupid and meaningless as trying to win an argument by citing a dictionary definition of a word. The context which led to the court saying this makes all the difference. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
