Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Copyleft conflict in interpretation only?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Copyleft conflict in interpretation only?
  • Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:35:39 +0200

Thinh Nguyen skrev:
In principle, the basis for the interpretation of any agreement (contract or
license) is the intent of the parties. However, in practice, this can be
more complex.
To quote the general principle as explained by a Delaware court:

When interpreting a contract, the Court¹s function is to ³attempt to
fulfill, to the extent possible, the reasonable shared expectations of the
parties at the time they contracted. The Court does this by initially
looking to the contract¹s express terms. If the terms are clear on their
face and reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, then the Court gives
those terms the meaning that would be ascribed to them by a reasonable third
party. If, however, a contract¹s language is ambiguous, then the Court will
look beyond the ³four corners² of the agreement to extrinsic evidence. A
contract is not ambiguous merely because the parties disagree as to its
proper construction. Instead, ambiguity exists when the terms of a contract
are reasonably susceptible to different interpretations or have two or more
different meanings. Also, when possible, the Court should attempt to give
effect to each term of the agreement and to avoid rendering a provision
redundant or illusory. Matria Healthcare, Inc. v. Coral SR, LLC, (Del. Ch.,
March 1, 2007) (available at
http://www.delawarelitigation.com/MatriaHealth.pdf)

This is the Common Law solution to the problem. A Civil Law court will not feel limited to "the four corners of the agreement". To make matters even more complicated French, German and Scandinavian courts, to name a few, will not use the same methodology.

/Peter Brink





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page