[OSM-legal-talk] Are the Contributor Terms Irrevocable?

[80n]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 23 August 2010 22:40, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is nothing in the CTs about what happens if either party
> > breaches the contract
>
> That is correct, but as a general principle of English law (which is
> the law chosen by the parties), if a party to a contract commits a
> breach that is so serious it strikes at the very root of the
> contractual agreement - what is known as a "fundamental" or
> "repudiatory" breach then under the doctrine of repudiation the
> innocent party may, at their choice, treat the contract as ended and
> from then on be relieved from any liability under the contract (a
> process known as "rescission").
>
> The doctrine does not rely on a contractual provision permitting a
> party to rescind.
>
> An announcement by OSMF that, for the future, it would refuse to
> comply with its obligations under the contract and, in particular, it
> would not comply with paragraph 3's terms on licensing, might well be
> a sufficiently serious breach as to permit contributors who had agreed
> to it to rescind.
>
> This is on the assumption that the CT's do form a contract of course
> and only relates to that contract.
>
>
What then is the purpose of including the word "irrevocable" in the list of
rights granted?  Does it have any meaning, or is it just window dressing?

80n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100823/86450416/attachment-0001.html>