privity (was Re: Fwd: [linux-elitists] Wow, M$ is even more evil than I thought)

Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com
Thu Apr 5 11:53:26 PDT 2001


begin  Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO quotation:

> Correct..just the implicit agreement under Business Law and Copyright
> Law...which -BTW is part of the contract law.

No, we do not have an "agreement" (in this hypothetical) -- because I've
never met you.  Depending on how I have my ftp server do logging, I may
never have any clue that you exist.   Look to this thread's header, and
you'll see one sufficient reason why no contract _can_ exist:  There is
no privity of contract.

You seem to try to make it work out that any transaction (even ones that
are not sales) are somehow an extended part of contract law.  Sorry, but
that is just not the case.  (Please see below.)

> Um no...I think...
> Contract Law also includes circumstances where there is no Contract.

OK, cite.   I realise you believe this to be true, but just repeating
the claim over and over isn't getting us very far.

I hate to evoke personal credentials, here, especially when they're over
a decade rusty, but:   Back in a prior professional existence, I passed
the CPA examination, and worked in CPA firms.  Therefore, although IANAL,
I do know the Uniform Commercial Code tolerably well.

> BTW - in the example you crafted, there is no license.  You DON'T need
> a license to use or aquire copyrighted work legally ;)
> 
> AND THAT is a major point! ;)

I already _said_ exactly that.  And you will find it comprehensively
explained inside the body of http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/#djb

> OK - Where is that established.

Attorneys' explanations of copyright-law terminology on the mailing list
license-discuss@opensource.org.

-- 
Cheers,                                      Right to keep and bear
Rick Moen                                  Haiku shall not be abridged
rick@linuxmafia.com                           Or denied.  So there.



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list