82,882
edits
Licence: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{g}}A [[contract]]ual 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). | {{g}}A [[contract]]ual 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 | Discussed in that great legal monograph, Billy Idol’s ''[[Rebel Yell]]'', in the context of a “[[licence]] for love” — | ||
:''She said, come on baby, I got a [[licence]] for love | |||
:''And if it expires, pray help from above — | |||
A [[licence for love]] of course ''usually'' is 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<ref>Then again, one ''can'' exclusively licence one’s “love”, for valuable [[consideration]], for a short period of time, so maybe not.</ref> | |||
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. | ||