Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?

[Alexander Terekhov]

Tim Tyler wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Tim Tyler wrote:
> 
> >> *If* the user agreed to a contract by simply copying,
> >> the world would be full of court cases where
> >> SlimeSoft had included in the small print of its
> >> license agreement:
> >>
> >> "And by the act of copying this software, you hereby
> >>   agree to sell all your worldly goods and deposit the
> >>   proceeds in swiss bank account #xxxxxxxx."
> >>
> >> Users do not agree to *anything* by the act of
> >> copying something.  The worst that can happen
> >> is that they can subsequently be sued for copyright
> >> violation - since the user can simply claim that they
> >> never bothered to read the license. [...]
> >
> > Suppose that value of "your worldly goods" is less than damages for
> > copyright infringement. Why wouldn't you bring such license as a
> > defense to claim of copyright infringement? I certainly would.
> 
> Right - but suppose that things are the other way around -
> and that SlimeSoft has to sue for copyright violation, and
> then live with whatever the court awards them for this
> evidently-terrible crime.

Feel free to disclaim to be a party to license contract and tell 
the court that by taking action(s) reserved to copyright owners 
you were willfully infringing copyright instead of assenting to 
contract. Your choice.

regards,
alexander.

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

                                     -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte