Questions for Guido van Rossum (Was: ...Tim Peters)

[Aahz Maruch]

In article <m3hf8w9ax3.fsf at localhost.localdomain>,
Gary Momarison  <nobody at phony.org> wrote:
>aahz at netcom.com (Aahz Maruch) writes:
>>
>> IANAL, but I understand that there is a legal difference between a
>> "contract" and a "license".  The latter would be more similar to a sign
>> on a private path that said, "Permission to pass revocable at any time."
>> 
>> (If the legal theory behind the second sentence isn't familiar to you,
>> let me know and I'll expound on it a bit.)
>
>Expound away.  I've seen that claim once before, but I can't say it's
>familiar.

Thing is, if you don't put up such a sign, and the public makes a path
across your property, eventually the public gains the right forever to
pass across your property at that point.  There's a legal term for this,
but I don't remember what it is right now.

Intellectual property is a bit trickier, because the default case is
that people cannot use your property.  Therefore you need to grant
people a license to use your property (or, as Tim prefers, just stick
the property in the public domain).  Licenses such as, "Permission
granted to freely copy for private use," are still valid despite no
consideration having been given.

>It's my current understanding that in a legal context, "license" is 
>lazy-speak for "license contract". All licenses are contracts. Any 
>agreement between two people is a contract.

Well, yes, but a license is not necessarily an agreement between
parties.  A license is more like the sign example, with conditions given
for use (it's a "permit" more than a "contract").

>Would you find the GPL to be a contract (because of it's words about
>"accepting") and the CWI license to be a non-contract license?  Not me.

I haven't checked the exact words of the GPL, so I don't know whether
I'd consider it a contract.

>That sign business is interesting.  If it said "The public may pass.",
>one would hope it would be revocable at any time.  But I suspect that
>even if it said "The public may forever pass.", it would be revocable.
>Different areas of law work differently.

I think your suspicion is wrong.  There is a way of setting up a deed to
a property that restricts the use of it (again, I forget the legal
term).  I once heard of a deed that restricted ownership of the property
to "non-Yankees" that had been taken to court and upheld.

>And please expound on some implications of your theory.  Should it 
>cause one to prefer certain license/contract wording?

Not in terms of "considerations", no.
--
                      --- Aahz (Copyright 2000 by aahz at pobox.com)

Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het    <*>     http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

NOTE: end of September, Earthlink kills Netcom.  My new permanent address is 
aahz at pobox.com.  I have not decided where to set my primary shell account.
Please do not send me e-mail condolences; my mailbox is already too big.