Thanks. I wasn't actually expecting an answer. I was just thinking outloud after I've read a lot of the "such and such preempts the GPL" stuff.
What I've concluded after reading the Copyright Act is that: 1. The Act explicitly establishes the concept of licensing, completely independently of any contracts. In other words, the notion that "every license is a contract, be it bilateral or unilateral" is in fact completely wrong. To authorize means to license - the Act gives that power, nothing else is required. 2. The Act recognises the concept of licesensing under conditions. It is therefore not necessary for any contract to exist in order to enforce those conditions. The license is either given if conditions are met or it is not if they are not met. 3. The Act recognises the concept of multiple permissions given by owners of copyright without any agreement between those owners. In other words, it is not necessary (but it is also not forbidden) for the owners to form a contract in order to authorize anything. What is needed is that the recieving party has all necessary permissions and that the conditions are met. --- "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Read my book when it is published in the next few > months. In the meantime, > please don't expect any attorney to answer your > broad questions in an email > thread. (You may get lucky. There are some attorneys > on here with time on > their hands.) > > /Larry Rosen __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
