On 9/27/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Bradley Hook</b> <<a href="mailto:bhook@kssb.net">bhook@kssb.net</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Restated: The *license* is not a contract, but agreeing to the license<br>creates an implied contract.</blockquote><div><br>That's better. The reason why I bring this up is that the FSF says that a license is not a contract, and MS seems to say that it is. I assume their reason for doing so is to try to muddy the waters when it comes to "Intellectual Property".
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">In any jurisdiction where IP issues will ever be handled in a manner<br>reasonable for these purposes, IP rights are of real value.
</blockquote></div><br>There are at least four different kinds of "Intellectual Property":<br>1) Copyright<br>2) Patent<br>3) Trademark<br>4) Trade Secret<br>Each of these has its own law. Throwing them together and calling them by the same name tends to conflate them, rather than improving understanding.
<br>