Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!virtualnews.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI & Our Retaliation Message-ID: <21557.Aug1119.27.5092@virtualnews.nyu.edu> Date: 11 Aug 92 19:27:50 GMT References: <1992Aug5.224337.6733@cirrus.com> <1992Aug10.225150.29474@unislc.uucp> Organization: IR Lines: 25 In article <1992Aug10.225150.29474@unislc.uucp> erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes: > As to your theory that there is no enforceable contract without > "consideration", that's all it is - a theory. > Current US jurisprudence doesn't support this. False. First of all, it's an issue of state law. Second, in most states (including, for example, New York), a contract is not enforceable without consideration. This is where the ``$1 for your house'' started. > For example, if I release code out onto the net and place a copyright notice > on it, that constitutes a valid contract between myself and whoever gets the > code. False. There is no contract. A copyright notice is simply that---a *notice* of existing rights. You can waive your rights, e.g., by placing the code into the public domain, but there's still no contract. This is a matter of Federal law. > the issue is whether BSDI is infringing on AT&T's copyright by distributing > what AT&T claims is its "intellectual property" covered by copyright law. Almost. The issue is whether BSDI is infringing on AT&T's copyright by distributing what *a judge thinks* is AT&T's property. ---Dan