[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: New BK License Problem?

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Rob Landley wrote:

> On Friday 04 October 2002 05:33 pm, 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

> 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


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.132 / U:1.128 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site