Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > You said in your previous message that you "had in mind the > > overwhelming majority of jurisdictions that have copyright > > regimes in line with the Berne Convention and that lack such > > additions." I interpreted this to mean that you thought that > > the BC was somehow relevant to Andreas' comment that in > > Germany you always make a contract, even with GPL. > > > > So now I am curious why you brought up the BC at all? > > Copyright regimes around the world tend to be more similar than > different in large part because they've mostly been brought into harmony > with the Berne Convention. I had thought this was a familiar notion.
True. However, since we were discussing whether a license necessarily is a contract, it seems strange to bring up a copyright treaty that has nothing to do with contracts. > > There are of course other elements, such as the capacity of the > > parties, the manner of making the offer and the acceptance, whether > > offer or acceptance was made under duress or under wrong impressions, > > and so on. > > OK. If you're going to be so picky as to object to a general > observation as having exceptions in a few jurisdictions (especially > when those exceptions are known from recent discussion), then I'd > suggest you should yourself be careful to speak precisely. As the context of the discussion was Andreas' comment about the GPL always being a contract in Germany, it seemed logical to me people would understand I was talking about that. I will be sure to be more precise in the future. Anyway, I think the only thing we can conclude is that it is in some countries possible for the GPL to be interpreted as a contract, and in some countries it is not. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
