On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 21:16, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: I really do not see why these are a problem to have free licenses:
> * A meeting of minds: the license issuer need never receive > communication from the licensee, so how can there be meeting of the > minds? already discussed properly. the meeting can be one-directional. > * A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to > the licensor, the license can't be free. In case of a free license, the consideration will be on the side of the licensee, namely refraining from any non-free clause. The thing is, just like the licensor, the licensee doesn't need to accept a (non-free) license, but as he will make the first offer, the license he chooses will be a license he has accepted. The thing you seemed to have missed, is that the consideration in a one-sided contract doesn't need to be on the side of the party imposing the contract. It's a bit like the contract of a gift. The only consideration in a gift is on the side of the party imposing the contract. And don't worry, gifts are entirely legal in civil law. So those two requirements are entirely -in my view- consequent with free licenses. Batist -- Q: What's tan and black and looks great on a lawyer? A: A doberman.