Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
nelson at crynwr.com
Sun Aug 4 02:43:31 UTC 2002
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> The MPL (and almost all similar licenses), for example, contains a
> patent grant that specifically applies to "use" and "practice" and it
> disclaims application of those patents to "the combination of the
> Original Code with other software or devices."
But that, by itself, doesn't form a contract. Where is the
consideration? Instead, it's just giving permission. I can say "You
can walk across my land, but that's all you can do" without forming a
contract, because it's my property. You're not giving up anything.
> It contains a defensive suspension provision relating to patent
> litigation that applies to users of the software as much as to
I can put anything I want in my license. The question is whether it's
enforcible in a context where there is no assent and no consideration.
Is a contract formed in such a case?
> What makes anyone think that this *CONTRACT* will be interpreted by the
> courts strictly under copyright law?
Contract? Or contract-wannabee?
-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | New Internet Acronym:
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok |
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | IANAE
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | I Am Not An Economist
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss