Lawrence E. Rosen writes: > The MPL (and almost all similar licenses), for example, contains a > patent grant that specifically applies to "use" and "practice" and it > disclaims application of those patents to "the combination of the > Original Code with other software or devices."
But that, by itself, doesn't form a contract. Where is the consideration? Instead, it's just giving permission. I can say "You can walk across my land, but that's all you can do" without forming a contract, because it's my property. You're not giving up anything. > It contains a defensive suspension provision relating to patent > litigation that applies to users of the software as much as to > distributors. I can put anything I want in my license. The question is whether it's enforcible in a context where there is no assent and no consideration. Is a contract formed in such a case? > What makes anyone think that this *CONTRACT* will be interpreted by the > courts strictly under copyright law? Contract? Or contract-wannabee? -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | New Internet Acronym: Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | IANAE Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | I Am Not An Economist -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3