|
From: | Tim Tyler |
Subject: | Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!? |
Date: | Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:48:00 GMT |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0a1 (Windows/20060724) |
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
On 2007-08-28, Tim Tyler <seemysig@cyberspace.org> wrote:
Users do not agree to *anything* by the act of copying something. The worst that can happen is that they can subsequently be sued for copyright violation - since the user can simply claim that theynever bothered to read the license.I agree with the principle, but the catch is that by using software without agreeing to the license, you're probably willfully infringing the copyright. If it's a registered copyright, that means the statutory damages can run up to $150,000. I'd have to sell my house if I got hit with that kind of sum.
What proportion of OSS developers register their work with the United States Copyright Office, I wonder. Doesn't that involve a nonrefundable filing fee of of $35 for each application? Also, how often does $150,000 actually get awarded in free software cases? The article at the top seems to say that getting very much in the way of damages is unlikely - since the cost of the software is low: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/open_source_railroad/page2.html ``For broken contracts, the remedy is damages - whatever it would take to put the plaintiff in the position he would have been in had the contract been fully performed. Since this is usually money, many providers of open source software would get the shaft, since they don't expect any remuneration for the copying of the software.'' -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |