[Free-sklyarov-uk] a win for sanity! and free speech

[David Haworth]

--WChQLJJJfbwij+9x
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 10:08:44AM +0000, Jim Peters wrote:
>=20
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that you
> needed to be the copyright holder in order to grant a licence.

I think what the decision is saying is that if you "negotiate" a
specific licence with someone to use a copyrighted work, then
you the terms of the licence apply instead of (not as well as)
the "normal" copyright law.

However, what the decision is really saying is that the sale
of shrink-wrapped software for a single payment (or a fixed
set ofd installements, which amounts to the same really) is
exactly that. A sale. Not a leasing agreement. So the copyright
laws hold and the EULA isn't worth the CD-space it takes up.

I think it's what would happen in the UK too if it ever came
to court. Most EULAs are a blatant attempt to change implied
contract terms after the sale.

--=20
David Haworth
Baiersdorf, Germany
david.haworth at altavista.net

--WChQLJJJfbwij+9x
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (SunOS)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE76Rz2HM6a+0rWdYoRAilDAKDGJ+cHhb0ClADQgA1d/Lc5iY/lMACffhtL
CgwdLYTjEVJgLX3E1nobrl4=
=VkU4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--WChQLJJJfbwij+9x--