> Please correct me if I am wrong, but all these software licenses are > not legal contracts per say. They are just wishes of the owners and > they can be enforceable only according to the local laws of the > country where the dispute is registered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works --------------- excerpt: ---------------- The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, usually known as the Berne Convention, is an international agreement governing copyright, which was first accepted in Berne, Switzerland in 1886. The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognize the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way as it recognises the copyright of its own nationals. In addition to establishing a system of equal treatment that internationalised copyright amongst signatories, the agreement also required member states to provide strong minimum standards for copyright law. -------------------------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization_Copyright_Treaty --------------- excerpt: ---------------- The World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty was adopted in 1996 to address the issues raised by information technology and the Internet, which were not addressed by the Berne Convention. Since almost all nations are members of the World Trade Organization, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights requires non-members to accept almost all of the conditions of the Berne Convention. As of September 2008[update], there are 164 countries that are parties to the Berne Convention. ---------------------- Here's my added thoughts: Despite the Berne Convention and WIPO Copyright Treaty, copyright laws can still vary considerably between countries. However, while software licenses are predicated on copyright (i.e., the "owner" of the software is the one who holds the copyright), they are *NOT* merely claims of copyright: they are legally binding *license contracts* in which authors (e.g., plugin developers) offer their creations and decide upon the terms (their "wishes", as you put it). Basic contract law requires three things: an "offer", an "acceptance", and some form of "consideration" (an exchange of value, either money or property). The plugin author makes the offer, and also provides the consideration (the plugin "property" itself, as well as the implicit value of the 'savings' from the no-fee open-source license). The plugin user, by deciding to copy the plugin, -- even if they never use it or redistribute it -- explicitly provides the acceptance. Of course, it is always possible for both parties to mutually compose other terms for use of the offered materials, but that must occur prior to the copying of the materials, and is not a requirement for a binding agreement. One party (the author) can dictate the terms; if the other party (the user) accepts those terms (by copying the plugin), then the agreement, as offered, is binding on both parties, without any formal negotiations. The only way to NOT be bound by the author's terms is to not copy the plugin. note: I'm not a lawyer, but I dated one for a while. :-) -e Eric Shulman TiddlyTools / ELS Design Studios -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
