Bob Young writes a letter to Darl [LWN.net]

Bob Young writes a letter to Darl

Posted Dec 12, 2003 1:00 UTC (Fri) by error27 (subscriber, #8346)
In reply to: Bob Young writes a letter to Darl by danw6144
Parent article: Bob Young writes a letter to Darl

>> FSF: Maybe a little contract law ain't such a bad thing after all.

That's stupid.

No one is saying contract law is bad. They are just saying it doesn't apply to the GPL since the GPL is a license and not a contract.

(Log in to post comments)

Bob Young writes a letter to Darl

Posted Dec 12, 2003 2:18 UTC (Fri) by danw6144 (guest, #14336) [Link]

Here's an exchange between law Professor Junger from Case Western Reserve
University and Alessandro Rubini.
Professor Junger is well know from the Junger v. Daly appellate decision on export prohibition of software encryption code.

http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/diritto/2002-February/000641.html

note the:

> ....(A
> ``non-contractual copyright permission'' would be some sort of license
> that does not involve a contract I suppose, but that is not a well
> defined term.)

If you find a reference to a ``non-contractual copyright permission'' please let me know.

Bob Young writes a letter to Darl

Posted Apr 23, 2004 11:52 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

From UCITA

5. Non-Contractual, Intellectual Property Notices. Subsection (d) clarifies that this Act does not apply to copyright or other intellectual property notices that are not a contract. This Act applies to agreements and contracts. Thus, the Act does not apply if an academic physicist in Houston creates program code and makes it freely available to other academics or individuals as a way of contributing to the development of so-called "free software" or "open source" software. Non-contractual conduct is not covered by this Act.

Now, I know that UCITA has been written by schmucks, but hey, if they understand the "non-contractual" then maybe it's time for you too?

Bob Young writes a letter to Darl

Posted Apr 23, 2004 12:23 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

Just to make it clear what the above comment from UCITA relates to:

(d) [ Intellectual property notices.] This [Act] does not apply to an intellectual property notice that is based solely on intellectual property rights and is not part of a contract. The effect of such a notice is determined by law other than this [Act].

Strange stuff... One would almost think that such notices can actually have some effect, even when there is no contract. Really, really strange...