Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > The forms of the license are formed and founded in Contract Law.
You are mistaken. There is nothing about the described situation that requires or suggests a contract. In fact, most open source / free software licences (for example) have no dependency whatsoever on contract law, and apply in accordance with the mechanisms of copyright law regardless of whether a contract forms between any parties involved. Which is a good thing, since otherwise there would be serious problems in the areas of privity and (arguably) consideration. > Contract Law is what enables you to make such a legaly binding > agreement. That is irrelevant to the question. Licences based in copyright law do not require an "agreement". > Licenses obey the forms of either a contract or a lease or they are > not legally valid. That is false. Please read, for example, GNU GPLv2. > 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. That is correct but irrelevant to the question. > Hopefully that's clear now. Clear but incorrect. Not that I can fault you for anything other than refusal to look at the specifics on account of preconception: Yours is a very common mistake among those new to open-source licensing. -- Cheers, Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done. Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
