On 5/12/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All copyright _licenses_ (in the US, anyway) are terms in contracts. > > This does seem to be your main thesis. > > You have not provided any reason to believe that this generalization > must hold in all cases.
Would somebody else be so kind as to correct Raul on this one? I have provided such reason, ad nauseam, and I can't be bothered to Google my own archived posts once again to line up all of the case law I've already cited on this point in one convenient, bite-sized post. Or he could consult a law book, of course. I don't bother with citations to Nimmer on Copyright or Corbin on Contracts or whatever except when I find them quoted in a court opinion, because I can't just hand you a URL. But if you can find me a place in a major law reference where it discusses a form of copyright license that is not conveyed by contract (written, oral, or implied by conduct), I will eat the page it's written on. Note that I have also been back and forth with [EMAIL PROTECTED] on this one and read many of Eben Moglen's public statements on the topic, and they literally have not cited any law in support of their position more recent than the 1710 Statute of Anne. Which, I might add, they interpret contrary to the precedent in Donaldson v. Beckett 1774, which is binding in all common law countries. Make of that what you will. Cheers, - Michael
