John, an open source license is not a nudum pactum. Consideration abounds in FOSS. Paraphrasing Wikipedia (the easy source for all law references):
The Jacobsen v. Katzer case is noteworthy in United States copyright law because Courts clarified the enforceability of licensing agreements on both open-source software and proprietary software. The case established the rule of law that terms and conditions of an Artistic License are "enforceable copyright conditions". /Larry -----Original Message----- From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org] Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 1:01 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations Pamela Chestek scripsit: > Without entering into that quagmire [...] my use of the word "contract" > was simply inapt. The principle applies in the interpretation of all > types legal documents. Sure. But if it is not meaningless, what does it mean? Since the right of an owner to revoke a bare license is inherent, it must be a promise not to exercise that right, and on what meeting of the minds, what consideration is that promise founded? Looks like a nudum pactum to me. -- John Cowan <http://www.ccil.org/~cowan> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan <mailto:co...@ccil.org> co...@ccil.org Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"? _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list <mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org> License-discuss@opensource.org <https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
