Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Once again: I am subscribed to -legal. Please follow debian list > policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me.
Please use X-Followups-To or a similar tool if it matters that much to you. I can't promise I'll remember on every message. > On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > They are *grants of permission*, which is an existing > > well-established category. The closest traditional analog in the old > > common law was permission to enter another's land. > > > > Another way to put it is that they are enforceable promises not to > > sue for copyright enfringement. > > In all the instances where I'm aware of similar grants of permision > and verbal promises being tested, they have been tested as if they > were verbal contracts. Well, you aren't that aware then.
