[Leaplist] Opensource court ruling.

[Bryan J. Smith]

It should also be noted that the courts are increasingly find that while not using
open source software under the terms of its license is a copyright violation, with
possible liability and damages due to the holder as a result, it will dismiss claims
of breach of contract.

In other words, it is increasingly clear that a software license is not a contract,
unless explicitly agreed to by both parties by each other (e.g., in writing or if
some verbal verification can be made between the explicit parties) like -- gasp --
and actual, negotiated contract.  This is likely to have real implications for "if you
break this package" and "click thru" licensing agreements.  I need to read up on
this common law and find out what rulings have found otherwise.

In a nutshell, the courts are applying "common sense," at least the higher courts
are.  Licenses are licenses, public or written, and you either agree to their terms
or you do not distribute, use, etc...  Contracts are another story though, and written
is always best.  ;)



----- Original Message ----
From: Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org>

Anything one creates has copyright if one claims it.  And with a copyright,
one is free to license as they wish.  All rights are reserved to the copyright
holder, such as a creator of software.  Others have to license that copyright
material before they can use, distribute, etc... it.
In this case, this copyright holder offered use of the software under the terms
of an open source license.  Another developer decided not to use it under the
terms that license, so that developer had no license.  He was in violation of
the copyright of the holder, use, distribution, etc... without a license.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.