Licence: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Does entering a {{confiprov|confidentiality agreement}} involve any kind of licence to use the disclosed information? Not if your [[legal eagle]]s have conducted their review with any kind of acuity. | Does entering a {{confiprov|confidentiality agreement}} involve any kind of licence to use the disclosed information? Not if your [[legal eagle]]s have conducted their review with any kind of acuity. | ||
{{ | {{linkedin|26/9/19}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
Revision as of 19:50, 26 September 2019
|
A contractual permission granted by the owner of a right, or item of property to another person to use that property or exercise that right. This might be an exclusive licence (as with a physical item — only one person can use it at a time) or non-exclusive (as with intellectual property, where many people can share the right without upsetting each other).
Discussed in that great legal monograph, Billy Idol’s Rebel Yell, in the context of a “licence for love” — a licence for love of course usually being exclusive, but when it comes to rock stars, persons with whom they consort and persons who explicit tout the availability of their own love to whomsoever should hold such a “licence” for the time being possibly not so much[1]
Does entering a confidentiality agreement involve any kind of licence to use the disclosed information? Not if your legal eagles have conducted their review with any kind of acuity.
26/9/19
References
- ↑ Then again, one can exclusively licence one’s “love”, for valuable consideration, for a short period of time, so maybe not.