On Wednesday 14 November 2001 12:06 pm, Humphreys, Noel wrote: > Signatures are not always necessary for formation of contracts. Software > license arrangements fit comfortably within normal contract analysis > patterns, and courts treat them that way. It's a mistake to think courts > would not treat the GPL and other open-source licenses as contracts.
Signatures aren't necessary for contracts, but some form of assent, agreement, etc. is necessary. There is no agreement unless both parties have agreed. This viewpoint may not be in accord with various court rulings, but it is in accord with the general definition of "contract" and "agreement". If I have not agreed to a license then I have not agreed to the license. A tautology, but one so basic it's lost on the lawyer wannabees that write these licenses. Another tautology: without an agreement there is no agreement. Just because some license declares that I have agreed to it does not make it so. Statements that say "by using this software you indicate your agreement..." are bogus. If that's the way that the law works then I can own the world tomorrow by simply publishing an advert in the New York Times. "Click-through" agreements are a little trickier, but they are still replete with problems. -- David Johnson ___________________ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3