/tech/ - technology

>>2563

stop shilling your crappy board mkay

I'm not sure why you posted this twice but if you or anyone else actually cares look up the legal definition of a license and you will see why you are wrong immediately. Also your sovereign-citizen like interpretation of the law may be cute but it won't help you get away with things in a real court. A contract doesn't literally have to mean that money is exchanged, anything of value can be exchanged to create a valid contract. If I say I will trade you 12 hrs of my labours for license to use a specific tool, no money was exchanged but we still have a legally binding contract where value was exchanged. What counts as a value exchange has already been determined by courts nearly universally as encompassing much more than money. If I provide you with something for free, that doesn't mean that the thing I'm providing is without value in a court of law.

You raise an interesting point though, in exchanges where a machine malfunctions and provides vouchers for a very expensive service for 0.00$ to be carried out, many courts have said that the contract isn't valid because nothing of value was exchanged. This is true, but does not apply to the situation of licenses, as a license often operates differently than a contract in modern case-law.

>>2565
Owner grants license to X.

For nothing.

There is no consideration.

X has no contractual rights and no ability to enforce any "Grantor will not rescind" promise.

>>2566
This is true, not denying that. But what I am denying is that law is rational and has a sensical internal logic that can be exploited. If the state decides that the law is going to enforce some contracts which have no exchange of value, they will. If they decide they want to not enforce other contracts which have no exchange of value, they won't.

Law isn't some platonic entity that is static, it is essentially whatever the state decides it feels like enforcing at any given point. And you are going to do it because if you don't they will kidnap you and rob you of your possessions. So it doesn't matter if you think you found some sov-citizen workaround in a contract, if the state doesn't feel like siding with you it won't. Laws aren't real.

>>2567
>Laws aren't real.
Holy soykaf thank you for putting those three words in this thread. This is the sole reason why I can't deal with the autism of GNU fanboys

>>2567
You're simply describing the 9th circuit.

>>2567
>If the state decides that the law is going to enforce some contracts which have no exchange of value, they will. If they decide they want to not enforce other contracts which have no exchange of value, they won't.

Replace state with courts.
>to enforce some contracts which have no exchange of value, they will.
They do this for promises to charities, and promises to women (but not all the time).

>they decide they want to not enforce other contracts which have no exchange of value, they won't.
That's the default rule. The above are exceptions (charities, women)