2009/3/25 Sean Kellogg <skell...@gmail.com>: > On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:22:34 pm Greg Harris wrote: >> > Free-software licenses especially are (by definition) unilateral >> > grants of permission, so I can't see how you lump them under contract. >> >> Um, no. Software licenses are one instance of a class of unilateral >> contracts. Another instance is product warranties. Yet another class is >> a store's advertised prices for goods. There are others. > Mr. Harris here is correct, for *most* cases. There does exist, however, a > hypothetical license which is NOT a contract... though you don't see them > very often. This is where person A gives something to person B without any > expectation from person B. This is a unilateral grant of permission and would > not be enforceable as a contract for lack of consideration. However, the > license is still good until such time as A withdraws the grant, which he > could conceivably do at any time. It's no different than if I invite you into > my house, which the court sees as a license to enter my property, converting > the person from trespasser to invitee.... but I can kick that person out > whenever I like. The moment we sign a lease (another form of contract) I lose > that power because the contract grants the leasor the right to be on the > premises and is enforceable (assuming I got something in the lease, like rent > money). > > In case anyone is wondering, the general point of view of law professor who > write articles about such things is that the GPL *is* a contract, because it > requires the recipient to forbear certain warranty rights.
All that is for USA, right? Do you know whether it works that way in other countries than USA, and probably UK, Canada and Australia too? Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
