|
From: | Rjack |
Subject: | Re: the GPL is a license not a contract .. |
Date: | Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:15:54 -0400 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) |
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <user@example.net> wrote:Doug Mentohl wrote:Rjack wrote:For the past seventy years no federal court has ever ruled a copyright license to be anything other than a contract.Who cares? One's got 7 letters, the other 8. It's the effect it has which is important, not the name you give it.
It matters greatly. Since license are contracts, interpretation under state common law applies as well as federal copyright law. Things like privity and 17 USC 301(a) apply. Without a choice of law provision a copyright license may be interpreted fifty different ways depending on which state jurisdiction is invoked. Sincerely, Rjack :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |