Subject: Re: A must read for license law
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:15:39 -0800

Quoting daniel wallace (danw6144@insightbb.com):

> This confusion gives rise to the myth that a copyright license is not
> a contract. Even a "bare license" is a unilateral contract and any
> dispute in a court of law will be examined first under state common
> law of contract prior to evaluating federal copyright claims.

Oh, for pity's sake, give it a rest, already.  It's really tiring to
hear (some) lawyers and protolawyers continually breezing into here and
pronouncing on the basis of the UCC still pouring out of their ears from
Contracts class that all software licences _must_ be evaluated as
contracts, and that no licence could conceivably have force under any
other theory of law.  Please.

If you seriously maintain that GPLv2 or any other classical "bare"
copyright licence lacks legal force for lack of some contractual
element, then kind post some relevant case citation to that effect.
(Of course, none such exists.)

-- 
Cheers,        "A raccoon tangled with a 23,000 volt line, today.  The results
Rick Moen       blacked out 1400 homes and, of course, one raccoon."
rick@linuxmafia.com                                  -- Steel City News
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3