Quoting daniel wallace ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > This confusion gives rise to the myth that a copyright license is not > a contract. Even a "bare license" is a unilateral contract and any > dispute in a court of law will be examined first under state common > law of contract prior to evaluating federal copyright claims.
Oh, for pity's sake, give it a rest, already. It's really tiring to hear (some) lawyers and protolawyers continually breezing into here and pronouncing on the basis of the UCC still pouring out of their ears from Contracts class that all software licences _must_ be evaluated as contracts, and that no licence could conceivably have force under any other theory of law. Please. If you seriously maintain that GPLv2 or any other classical "bare" copyright licence lacks legal force for lack of some contractual element, then kind post some relevant case citation to that effect. (Of course, none such exists.) -- Cheers, "A raccoon tangled with a 23,000 volt line, today. The results Rick Moen blacked out 1400 homes and, of course, one raccoon." [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Steel City News -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
