Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> writes: > * Miriam Ruiz: > > > 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? > > There is no such thing as a unilateral contract in Germany.
Nor anywhere, AFAIK. The idea is not to enter a contract, but to unilaterally grant permissions otherwise reserved. The common meaning of “license” essentially means “permission”, after all. > Over here, free software licenses are typically considered invitations > to enter licensing contracts, according to the terms in those > licenses. That's a shame, since that's counter to (my unserstanding of) the intention: to unilaterally grant license to someone who would not otherwise have it. > The net effect is still the same, I think. If you reject the offer, > you haven't got a license. No, that's not the case for a unilateral grant of license. There's no offer being made, and therefore no agreement to be entered into; the recipient doesn't have to agree to do anything to have the specific permissions granted by the license terms. However, any actions *not* licensed are outside the grant, and are covered by relevant law. -- \ “It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one | `\ trifling exception, is composed of others.” —John Andrew Holmes | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
