On Wed, 03 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > You claimed that this "followed directly from contract law", to which > I replied: > > The falsity of that statement can be seen at a brief glance from > the fact that "a license granting unlimited unrevokable rights to > the public to use, modify, copy, etc." would be founded in > copyright law, rather than copyright law, without even considering > the merits of the "public domain dedications".
The forms of the license are formed and founded in Contract Law.
Contract Law is what enables you to make such a legaly binding
agreement. Licenses obey the forms of either a contract or a lease or
they are not legally valid. [At least, I have yet to year a good
argument for why they would be valid.]
The specific rights that can be restricted may be curtailed by
Copyright Law, Constitutional Law, and/or a myriad of other sections
of US Law.
Hopefully that's clear now.
> > You are absolutely correct, though, in pointing out that Copyright Law
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > plays a part in the rights that are granted to the public without a
> > License....
>
> The other gentleman did not say that. Moreover, it is quite clear that
> contract law need not be involved in "the rights that are granted to the
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> public without a license".
Correct.
Don Armstrong
--
She was alot like starbucks.
IE, generic and expensive.
-- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
pgpV76GfZu093.pgp
Description: PGP signature
