No there isn't.
Pay money and there's a contract.
Anything else is in your head.
No there isn't.
Pay money and there's a contract.
Anything else is in your head.
anyway, to the gist of this reply: you disagree with the license conditions. an important, but rather obvious, observation to be had is that, the rights the LICENSE offers, are contingent on your acceptance of the LICENSE conditions. one cannot be had without the other.
the LICENSE is real, it's a contract, and is in effect the moment you obtain a copy.
> You can’t [un-]license your way out [of the] liability if you [copied], formally or informally, [wares] that [you have no rights to, because you disagreed with its license conditions].
Regardless, contracts are not required for reliance interest to apply.
Reliance requires an exchange of value. If you get something for zero value without a contract it's a gift under US commercial law.
You need to provide citations if you keep insisting otherwise because every open source licence relies on this
you're right, in case law exchange of considerations matters, and licenses are treated as rights grants. however, civil law does not care about considerations, and use of the object implies consent.
but that is irrelevant to our thread, because whether you breach the terms of the contract, or violate the terms of the rights grant, the different legal systems seem to have arrived at the same conclusion: it is copyright infringement
> Regardless, contracts are not required for reliance interest to apply.
was hoping that including "some other evidence" would be enough to avoid that comment