Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > > 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. > I think that is the key point. In common-law countries, both sides must > have obligations for it to be a 'contract' (one side makes the 'offer' and > receives the 'consideration'). If only one side has obligations, it's not > called a 'contract'; it's a 'gift', perhaps.
Yes, that's my understanding as well. > In common law countries we say "the license grant should not be a > contract". In civil law countries, I'm not quite sure how to translate > that. I'm not sure *why* a copyright license grant shouldn't be a contract. I understand this creates problems in common law countries because of the lack of consideration. But in civil law countries, _giving someone directions_ creates a contract. So why not giving someone a copyright license? Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
