3 ms·
To the siblings suggesting that the publishers clarify their interpretation of the license, this is not how copyright law works. You do not get to define the in
by greggyb 11y ago
To the siblings suggesting that the publishers clarify their interpretation of the license, this is not how copyright law works. You do not get to define the interpretation of the license you utilize. A court will decide that if/when an issue ever goes to trial.
At best you are saying "I promise that I won't pursue legal action in situations conforming to these criteria." This is not legally binding, and as such interpretation would be external to the license, would likely make no impact on a third party's decision to use or not use the software.
If the goal is to eliminate an ambiguity in the license, the solution is another license, not the ambiguous license plus a promise.
- amyjess 11y ago> At best you are saying "I promise that I won't pursue legal action in situations conforming to these criteria." This is not legally binding, Actually, promissory estoppel is a thing: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Est...
- greggyb 11y agoCool. I did not realize that. I do think that the court case would just devolve to interpreting the circumstances described in the promise. At the end of the day, my point is that a contract or a promise is only interpreted by the court. One cannot make legal opinion in the form of a contract or a promise.