Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 28 March 2005 07:34 am, Peter Brink wrote:
> Branko Collin skrev:
> > On 24 Mar 2005, at 23:47, Peter Brink wrote:
> >>All open source licenses contain an offer,
> >>which is granted provided that the user agrees to the terms of the
> >>contract.
> >
> > This is not true. You do not need to agree to the terms of the
> > license.
>
> ??? If that is the case how to you propose that the licenses work?
>
> How does the licensee become bound by the terms of the license? You do
> agree that the license has terms, don't you?

I think the difference may be that in a pure license, there is no 
consideration.
>
> All open source licenses are contracts (where you and I live). As all
> other contracts they have an offer and there is a grant or benefit.
> Since open source/content license are adeshion contracts there must
> exist an explicit act which works as a replacement for an oral or
> written acceptance of the terms of the contract. In this case that act
> is when a user makes use of the offer in the license to do something he
> could not do without the license, such as publishing a derivative work
> without asking for permission. At that point license binds the licensee
> to the terms of the license.
>
> /Peter Brink

I am certainly no expert, but the way I have seen it explained for the US, 
was 
that if it were a contract, state courts would have jurisdiction, but if it 
is a license and copyright infringement matter, federal courts would have 
jurisdiction.

IANAL and have no clue if this is correct. Can a lawyer familiar with the 
situatio in the US comment?

all the best,

drew