This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
etc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
To: "Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: OpenSSL and GPLed programs
Date: 21 Jun 2001 09:48:34 -0700
"Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> An additional basis for the clause is to turn a default rule into a
> breach of contract/license issue, which can have different thresholds
> of proof, elements of breach, etc. than relying on copyright
> infringement.
Though it's a public license, so contract issues are entirely moot,
and only boil down to copyright infringement int he first place.
I don't see how "contract issues are entirely moot". Certainly at least the
terms of the license must be interpreted to determine if they are complied
with. AFAIK copyright law does not deal with such issues. Rather contract
law has a long established tradition for interpreting and defining
unilateral "contracts". I would be interested to see cites otherwise. I am
talking U.S. law here but would be interested in laws of other countries as
well.
Also, I am not convinced that most "open source" licenses are not contracts.
My view is that a good argument can be made that that a licensee, in
consideration for receiving the right to modify, distribute, etc the code
and in consideration for foregoing the right to sue the licensor (limitation
of liability) accepts the license contract by modifying, distributing, etc.
the code. Indeed if it were otherwise, the limitation of liability would
have no effect because the public license model you propose is unilateral.
It's almost like you know a little law, but not enough to actually
help in these conversations.
Well I think I know a little bit of law as an attorney. I hoped I was
providing useful information. I'd be happy to go away if you prefer.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
