On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Friday 04 October 2002 05:33 pm, tom_gall@mac.com wrote:
>
> > Yeah I understand what your intent is and I'm not flaming you. I have a
> > problem with the wording in that claus. Unfortunately you're not a
> > lawyer so your stated intent means little, it's the language in the
> > license that has meaning.
>
> Actually, his stated intent means an awful lot, if you can get it in
> writing.
Not in the case of this license.
> Which, thanks to the archived nature of this list, you have. (Remember, the
> legal basis for contract law is just informed consent and the recording
> thereof. The license itself is merely a formal and carefully worded version
> of "what he said".)
>
> A verbal contract may only be worth the paper it's printed on, but it IS
> legally binding if you can prove it.
Do a google search on "fully integrated agreement" and "parol evidence
rule".
> And even relatively casual statements,
> if recorded, can show up to haunt you in court later on.
Only if you haven't got a fully integrated agreement. If you do, they'd
never appear in court. If you look at the license, you'll note it has a
merger clause ("This License represents the complete agreement between You and BitMover
regarding the BitKeeper Software covered by this License.").
I'm sure it's there specifically so the parol evidence rule applies
completely.
--Dan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:52 EST