From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <20030619093435.13228.qmail@mail.dirac.net> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license From: Keith Nash Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:34:35 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: cfca49ca-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tuesday 17 June 2003 16:04, Theo de Raadt wrote: > That is not a license which makes it free. It is a *contract* with > consequences; let me be clear -- it is a contract with consequences > that I am unwilling to accept. This is an aspect of open-source license wars that I was not previously aware of. If the license is a contract, that contract is not enforceable as such in court. The reason (at least in English law, perhaps someone can comment on NY/USA law) is that for a contract to be created, there must be an exchange of value - i.e. Lucent gives you the software, you have to give them something of value (e.g. cash) in return. Therefore, no license where the software is given away can be a contract: it is merely a grant of rights to the licensor's copyrighted material (and/or patents and trademarks) - which is exactly what Theo would like it to be. > Or perhaps you guys are utterly blind to what is happening with IBM > and SCO right now. The IBM/SCO case is different, because they have an enforceable contract: IBM paid SCO for certain rights. Keith.