Thanks Eric for the links. Its very informative. I shall read it. On Jan 8, 11:17 am, Eric Shulman <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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_L... > > --------------- 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... > --------------- 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.
