Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Thursday 24 March 2005 05:26 pm, Peter Brink wrote:
> drew Roberts skrev:
> > I understand that this is what you are saying, but I will say again -
> > This is a statement which I believe from my reading, big boys in the Free
> > Software world would disagree with and I am not talking about the "Open
> > Source" issue.
> >
> > I think I have seen claims on numerous occasions and I think from people
> > on the inside of the FSF, etc. that the GPL is a license and not a
> > contract.
>
> A license is a special type of contract. US law has some pretty specific
> rules (IIRC) for when a contract is called a license. Other
> jurisdictions has less specific rules. Regardless - the terms of a
> license is governed by contract law, and to find out which the rules are
> to be used to figure out under which jurisdictions contract law a given
> license is to be interpreted, one has to turn to international private law.
>
> Now I don't know what it is that "the big boys" are disagreeing with,
> but surely they cannot claim that contract law is irrelevant as far as
> Open Source/Content Licenses goes.
>
> > I understand that you are denying that they would be correct in their
> > views, but are you denying that these views are held at all or that I am
> > mistaken in thinking people in the know (on the inside) hold these views.
>
> ?????!
>
> I am doing what?

Sorry, that was just a way of saying that if I understand you correctly and I 
understand them correctly, you think they are wrong in their views. 
Obviously, you made no such direct statement about them.

Now, IIRC, one of the issues in the US (I am not a US citizend, nor do I 
currently live there) is that copyright law is federal law and contract law 
is dealt with by the states. Therefore, if someone is violating the 
provisions of the GPL with respect to a program you released under that 
license, it can matter very much if the GPL is considered a license or a 
contract.

If it is a contract, you cannot bring a copyright suit in federal court but 
must bring a breach of contract suit, most likely in state court.

I think that is how I have seen things explained. I am far from knowing this 
with confidence though.

Can someone who knows the US situation better please comment and correct as 
necessary?
>
> Sorry - but I find the above very confusing... Have I claimed that some
> one is saying something about something at all? What I'm saying is that
> the terms of a copyright license is governed by contract law - that is
> all. Obviously the rules laid out in the relevant copyright law sets the
> boundaries for what two parties can agree upon but how that agreement is
> to be interpreted is still governed by contract law.

all the best,

drew