> On 5/17/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anyways, I don't really care whether or not you can find a conflict > > between some perhaps irrelevant text and the definition you've > > asserted -- I want to see some citation that leads me to believe > > that the distinction you've asserted is correct.
On 5/18/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, you were the one who claimed that the assertion "a license is a > provision in a contract" conflicted with the cases cited in my > previous e-mail. I repeat, what conflict did you have in mind, > exactly? I did? I can't find that assertion. Maybe you're talking about this exchange (text cut down and paraphrased.for readability): R: GPL is a license or a license agreement M: No. License is a provision in a contract R: Could you provide a cite? That conflicts with [what I know] > Does it help if I concede that sometimes a judge uses the word > "license" to refer to the whole agreement, not just the provision > granting certain rights from licensor to licensee? Yes, that helps in the sense that it more closely corresponds with reality as I know it. > Would you consider conceding, in return, that you can't find > any court decision that applied some legal theory other than > contract in order to analyze the scope and effect of a license, > and it's not for lack of trying? No, I will not. Huston v. La Cinq Cass. civ. 1re (28 May 1991). is an example of a court decision that applied some legal theory other than contract in order to analyze the scope and effect of a license. Thanks, -- Raul
