[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Did I finally figure out the rationale?

From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
Subject: Re: Did I finally figure out the rationale?
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 21:23:15 +0100

Dom, 2007-05-27 às 11:54 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
> On May 27, 4:09 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <> wrote:
> > Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 18:44 -0500, John Hasler escreveu:
> >
> > > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra writes:
> > > > No, the license is not a contract, it is a Copyright License.
> >
> > > He means the Microsoft EULA, and yes, it is a contract and not a copyright
> > > license.  In order to be a copyright license it would have to yield some 
> > > of
> > > the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.  It does not.  The GPL, on 
> > > the
> > > other hand, _is_ a copyright license.
> >
> > No, even the MS-EULA is a copyright license. However, since it's
> > conditions remove more rights from you than those explicitly removed
> > from copyright, it has to explicitly ask your permission or they would
> > be illegal.
> >
> But then when does it become a contract?

The day pigs can fly all by themselves.

Contracts fall into contract law.
Copyright licenses fall into copyright law.

Some people, and unfortunately a few countries' jurisprudence, has been
blurring the differences a bit, but I think that it is wrong to follow
that slippery slope.

It's already bad enough that some people keep talking about
[quote]intellectual property[unquote] mixing laws that are quite
different and creating extremely dangerous false assumptions.

Let's not add more of these problems!


+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]