3 ms·
IANAL, but I wrote a few licenses and am working with a lawyer on them. Minus details, yes, that's what I understand as well. My licenses will have to make it
by gavinhoward 3y ago
IANAL, but I wrote a few licenses and am working with a lawyer on them.
Minus details, yes, that's what I understand as well.
My licenses will have to make it clear that they are both licenses and contracts, including with third parties.
- mr_toad 3y agoI guess it doesn’t do any harm but does that really need to be spelled out? Under what circumstances could a license be enforced if it wasn’t a contract? Further, if Vizio are claiming to not have a contract, then they don’t have a license, which means they are admitting in court to have wilfully and knowingly committed copyright infringement.
- gavinhoward 3y agoBy spelling it out, a good judge would give summary judgment (read "judgment without expensive litigation") that the license is a contract and that the plaintiff (SFC in this case) has a right to sue. Basically, this whole question would have been less costly for the SFC with it spelled out.