Eiffel Forum License

[JP]

Regarding your last point, take a look at the U.S. ProCD v. Zeidenberg case 
which you can find here http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/index/contract.html (of 
course, the mileage on the ProCD reasoning may vary in some other U.S. 
circuits or internationally)


>From: Mark Wells <mark at pc-intouch.com>
>To: David Johnson <david at usermode.org>
>CC: license-discuss at opensource.org
>Subject: RE: Eiffel Forum License
>Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, David Johnson wrote:
>
> > That's the way I have always viewed licenses. You have a limited set of
> > rights to the copy of the software you own. In order to get additional
>
>If I understand these correctly, the right you have is the right to use
>it.  Any other rights (redistribution, modification, public performance,
>etc.) have to be granted by the author or other owner of the copyright.
>
> > rights, they must be be granted by the author. Most software licenses,
> > free or otherwise, impose conditions along with the permissions, such as
> > "you may redistribute this program provided that you also redistribute
> > the source code."
> >
> > I have a big problem with "license agreements". They state that "by
> > using this program you agree to ...". They rarely grant additional
> > permissions, but restrict the legal rights to the copy that you already
> > have. For example, you have the right to make archival copies of your
> > own copies. But many licenses severly restrict this. From what I can
> > gather from the wisdom on this list, they only way they can do this is
> > by asserting that the license is a contract and that you have legally
> > *agreed* to be bound by these restrictions. I still dispute that I have
> > entered into an agreement. I already have the right to use the program
> > and to make archival copies for my own personal use. By rejecting their
> > "agreement", I still have the rights over my copy that copyright gives
> > me.
>
>Even if a court were to accept that these licenses are actually contracts,
>the procedure for 'agreeing' to the contract is almost certainly invalid.
>The full text of the license (for shrinkwrap software) is usually printed
>inside the packaging or recorded on the distribution media, where you
>have to buy the software and open the box before you can read it.
>
>The logical conclusion of this is that by buying the software you have
>agreed to any contract that may happen to be in the package.  I can't
>imagine a court upholding this.
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com