Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S263174AbSJFCLm>; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:11:42 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S263189AbSJFCLm>; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:11:42 -0400
Received: from opt-out.cdt.org ([206.112.85.61]:21435 "EHLO mail.cdt.org")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S263174AbSJFCLj>;
	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:11:39 -0400
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:17:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>
To: Rob Landley <landley@trommello.org>
Cc: tom_gall@mac.com, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>,
       <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: New BK License Problem?
In-Reply-To: <200210060128.g961S11J485516@pimout4-ext.prodigy.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210052208130.19932-100000@dberlin.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1670
Lines: 44



On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Rob Landley wrote:

> On Friday 04 October 2002 05:33 pm, tom_gall@mac.com wrote:
> 
> > Yeah I understand what your intent is and I'm not flaming you. I have a
> > problem with the wording in that claus.  Unfortunately you're not a
> > lawyer so your stated intent means little, it's the language in the
> > license that has meaning.
> 
>  Actually, his stated intent means an awful lot, if you can get it in 
>  writing. 
Not in the case of this license.

>  Which, thanks to the archived nature of this list, you have.  (Remember, the 
> legal basis for contract law is just informed consent and the recording 
> thereof.  The license itself is merely a formal and carefully worded version 
> of "what he said".)
> 
> A verbal contract may only be worth the paper it's printed on, but it IS 
> legally binding if you can prove it.

Do a google search on "fully integrated agreement" and "parol evidence 
rule".

>  And even relatively casual statements, 
> if recorded, can show up to haunt you in court later on.

Only if you haven't got a fully integrated agreement. If you do, they'd 
never appear in court. If you look at the license, you'll note it has a 
merger clause ("This License represents the complete agreement between You and BitMover 
regarding the BitKeeper Software covered by this License.").
I'm sure it's there specifically so the parol evidence rule applies 
completely.

--Dan


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/