Date: 27 Feb 2002 20:49:52 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Rich Morin <rdm@cfcl.com>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: First test of GPL in court Message-ID: <iaofiarz0v.fia@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <3C7D8014.A5502797@mindspring.com> References: <20020227122820.A64839@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20020227142005.A16555@energyhq.homeip.net> <20020227132417.B64839@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20020227052928.L12253@rain.macguire.net> <3C7D1454.6957B09E@mindspring.com> <p0510032db8a31e6f3943@[192.168.254.205]> <3C7D8014.A5502797@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes:
> The UCSD P-code system was licensed under a Berkeley style
> license, and rights to use it were revoked from all but
> Apple Computer, Inc., who had negotiated a non-revokable
> license, in return for consideration.
>
> Similarly, the revocation of the Net/2 code release by UCB
> following the settlement agreement with USL as a result of
> the USL vs. UCB lawsuit was only possible because the
> licensees had not provided consideration in return for
> their license.
Such outcomes are often more a result of a party being unwilling or
unable to pay for better lawyering than another party, and not a result
of an unsupportable legal position. (Interesting cases, tho. Thanks.)
But many will agree, or at least greatly fear that others will agree,
that BSD type licenses are not the basis of a contract. That was one
reason the nice Python license was replaced by a monstrosity (which
still lacks obvious consideration). It does mention an "ACCEPT button".
> Please consult "Black's Law" for more information on Torte
> law in the U.S..
Well, there's a law on almost every thing else, why not on "a kind of
rich layer cake made with many eggs and little flour and usually
containing chopped nuts"? Ya learn somethin' every day.
Unless that was a typo for Tort Law, law about "Any wrongful act,
damage, or injury done willfully, negligently, or in circumstances
involving strict liability, but not involving breach of contract, for
which a civil suit can be brought" (ie, under Contract Law).
I think the concept is that you'll damage me if you withdraw your
non-contract license from me after I've become dependent on it and/or
invested lots of money or effort based on having the license.
Black's costs $. How about this from "Bouvier 1856"?
A bare license ... being without consideration, may be revoked at
pleasure, as long as it remains executory; 39 Hen. VI. M. 12, page
7; but when carried into effect, either partially or altogether, it
can only be rescinded, if in its nature it will admit of revocation,
by placing the other side in the same situation in which he stood
before he entered on its execution. 8 East, R. 308; Palm. 71;
S. C. Poph. 151; S. C. 2 Roll. Rep. 143, 152."
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?iaofiarz0v.fia>