Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Anyway, it depends on your jurisdiction. Here in Brasil, *every* > > software license is a contract, and is ruled, aside from the > > dispositions in Copyright Law (9.610/98) and Computer Programs Law > > (9.609/98), to Contract Law and the Civil Code. > > So something as simple as the MIT/X11 license -- "I grant to you a > license to make derivative works of this work, and to trade in them > and it without restriction" is a contract? Gosh.
Yes. It's a contract in most civil law countries actually. That's because in civil law, the contract is the most elementary of legal constructs. A favorite exercise is to ask first-year students to count the number of contracts they enter into when they buy a leaf of bread. > How can I enforce > it against you? Since the contract does not give me obligations, you cannot enforce anything. But I can enforce it against you if you later say I am not licensed. Suppose I say to you "I want to give you this watch." You say that you want to have it. We now have a contract, under which I am obliged to give you my watch. If I later do not give you the watch, you can sue me in court for breach of contract. > > IRT jurisdicions like ours where, every license is only granted by > > contract, where do you stand? > > It may not be possible to have free software in such jurisdictions. I > don't understand their laws well enough to say that it's impossible -- > indeed, the other messages you've sent about a universal right to make > any copies necessary for operation imply it's not possible to have > *unfree* software there. I don't see why it's relevant that a license grant is or is not part of a contract. As long as the licensor grants sufficient permission to meet the DFSG, what's the problem? Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
