Pamela Chestek scripsit: > Without entering into that quagmire [...] my use of the word "contract" > was simply inapt. The principle applies in the interpretation of all > types legal documents.
Sure. But if it is not meaningless, what does it mean? Since the right of an owner to revoke a bare license is inherent, it must be a promise not to exercise that right, and on what meeting of the minds, what consideration is that promise founded? Looks like a nudum pactum to me. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"? _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
