OSD modification regarding what license can require of

[John Cowan]

Forrest J. Cavalier III scripsit:

> You mean "Specht et al v Netscape".

Yes.  I forgot which name came first.

> In that decision, there
> is a footnote [8] on page 10 which states, (in part) 
>    The apparent failure of consideration on Plaintiff's side --
>    put simply, Plaintiff's obtaining SmartDownload without giving
>    anything in return -- might support a finding that no contract
>    exists. However, because I rely on other grounds to find that
>    the parties did not enter into a contract, see infra, I need not
>    decide this issue.

That is to say: the contract *might* have been void for lack of
consideration, but *was* void for lack of acceptance, so the first
question need not be considered.

> I am not an expert.  Can you provide a reference to a decision
> where the outcome hinged on deciding there was consideration
> for a gratis transfer?

No.  Almost anything can be consideration, though, which is why I
said it is very nearly a matter of form.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3