I am not arguing against your position, Dave. I’m wondering whether you—or any of the rest of us—are begging the question, and the degree to which any of the possible scenarios have been tested. Just because ‘treating the terms as a property of the work makes sense’ doesn’t mean that they are so under law.
Copyright adheres to copyrightable works automatically, no notice or anything other than the act of authoring the works is required. This is unusual, I think.
Yes, copyright adheres to works because this is determined in copyright law.
As I understand, licenses are a form of contract, so determining whether a contract exists between parties would seem to be a critical question in determining the applicability of a license. This is why I wondered if in some situations the decision on the applicability of a license might revert to the copyright holder.
EULA have the L, but the A is what makes them a contract.
But libre licenses aren't like that: they are "solely" copyright licenses. So they are unusual in that they are not agreements in this sense; they don't require any agreement between two parties. If you obtain a copy, you are bound by the copyright license, or, if you haven't obtained a license, you have absolutely no permissions/freedoms/rights to do anything except those fair use/fair dealing exceptions -- and inversely, the license terms can't take away your freedoms/rights under those exceptions -- but that's what "all rights reserved" signals, even though it's completely unnecessary post Berne. The copyright holder reserves all their rights under copyright be default, without them having to do anything, and as a recipient you only get what you are licensed to do, without agreeing to it.
Afaik, ianal, but this is also the basis of "shrinkware" terms, where by unwrapping the shrinkwrapping of a boxed proprietary software package you become subject to certain terms even though you didn't agree to anything. There can be additional terms in a contract you click to agree to, as well, which operates under contract law rather than copyright law.
Comments
I am not arguing against your position, Dave. I’m wondering whether you—or any of the rest of us—are begging the question, and the degree to which any of the possible scenarios have been tested. Just because ‘treating the terms as a property of the work makes sense’ doesn’t mean that they are so under law.
As I understand, licenses are a form of contract, so determining whether a contract exists between parties would seem to be a critical question in determining the applicability of a license. This is why I wondered if in some situations the decision on the applicability of a license might revert to the copyright holder.
But libre licenses aren't like that: they are "solely" copyright licenses. So they are unusual in that they are not agreements in this sense; they don't require any agreement between two parties. If you obtain a copy, you are bound by the copyright license, or, if you haven't obtained a license, you have absolutely no permissions/freedoms/rights to do anything except those fair use/fair dealing exceptions -- and inversely, the license terms can't take away your freedoms/rights under those exceptions -- but that's what "all rights reserved" signals, even though it's completely unnecessary post Berne. The copyright holder reserves all their rights under copyright be default, without them having to do anything, and as a recipient you only get what you are licensed to do, without agreeing to it.
Afaik, ianal, but this is also the basis of "shrinkware" terms, where by unwrapping the shrinkwrapping of a boxed proprietary software package you become subject to certain terms even though you didn't agree to anything. There can be additional terms in a contract you click to agree to, as well, which operates under contract law rather than copyright law.