On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 August 2010 19:58, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm curious about the meaning of the word "irrevocable" in the > contributor > > terms. > > > > Having examined a number of licenses that grant a similar range of rights > > (worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual) none of them include > > irrevocability. They also all contain a termination section that is > usually > > engineered to allow termination in the event of a breach. > > > > Am I right in thinking that if OSMF committed a material breach of the > CTs > > then contributors would not be able to revoke their grant of rights? > Does > > the common law right to repudiate trump the inclusion of an > irrevocability > > clause? > > I assume you mean "fundamental breach" Yes, that was the term I was searching for. > since a material breach of > contract may not be sufficiently serious to permit the other party to > repudiate it. Off the top of my head I don't know any specific law on > the subject, but if OSMF's conduct struck at the very root of the > contract (i.e. it was a fundamental or repudiatory breach) then I > cannot see any reason why the contractual element of the CT should not > be revocable. > > I'm less sure about the licence element. > > -- > Francis Davey > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk