Licenses versus contracts

[John Cowan]

"W. Yip" wrote:

> License: This is an abstract form of permission, granted to make lawful
> what would otherwise be unlawful [...].
> Bare License: You own land, and grant a license to someone to enter it.

Thanks for the definitions.

Thus a copyright license such as "You have the right to make up to five
verbatim copies of this message and send them to your friends" is a
bare license which happens to be in writing.  It is not the subject matter
of any contract.

Now, what if the copyright license says, "You have the right to make
up to five copies of this message and send them to your friends, provided
you also include a disclaimer of your authorship".  Still a
bare license, I think, even though conditional.  If you make and send
the copies and omit the disclaimer, you are an infringer,
sc. "you have violated the license", although there is no breach of
contract because there is still no contract.

IMHO the GNU GPL is of this type.

> He has the obligation of letting you see the movie. You have the obligation of
> paying for the ticket.

I think your pronouns are swapped in these two sentences, and they should read:

> You have the obligation of letting him see the movie.  He has the obligation
> of paying for the ticket.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)