| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
GplandGplandPosted Apr 24, 2004 2:06 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)In reply to: Gpland by danw6144 Parent article: Bob Young writes a letter to Darl
WOW! This is absolute HERASY in Gpland! An OFFER is an understanding that assent to a bargain is INVITED. What nonsense! How dare you use the word "offer" and "invited" in a legal construction. The (Second) Restatement of Contracts is banished from Gpland! Things like the "Restatement" only exist in the real world. OK. Under what theory are then makers of UCITA saying this: (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]. 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. Remember, UCITA is the law in at least two states. Is it possible that the law-makers, involved in making the law about licences, would give half a chance to "non-contractual intellectual property notices", if they were convinced that such things could not exsist?
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||