[License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations
lrosen at rosenlaw.com
Sat Sep 19 15:39:01 UTC 2015
John, an open source license is not a nudum pactum. Consideration abounds in FOSS. Paraphrasing Wikipedia (the easy source for all law references):
The Jacobsen v. Katzer case is noteworthy in United States copyright law because Courts clarified the enforceability of licensing agreements on both open-source software and proprietary software. The case established the rule of law that terms and conditions of an Artistic License are "enforceable copyright conditions".
From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at mercury.ccil.org]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 1:01 PM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations
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> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan <mailto:cowan at ccil.org> cowan at ccil.org
Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"?
License-discuss mailing list
<mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org> License-discuss at opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss