Argument Licensing and Agreement
Luluhyia is an agglutinating language and therefore its morphology is relevant to syntactic derivation. Morphological processes determine the number of arguments of the verb while syntax determines the distribution of the arguments in the sentence. As such, there is interplay between morphology and syntax.
Lutsotso verbs have derivational morphemes that cause valence change in a sentence. As for now, there is no comprensive work dealing with the constraint that govern the order in which these morphemes co-occur in a Lutsotso sentence. Thus, this study seeks to investigate the argument licensing morphology in Lutsotso and show relevance of morphology to the syntax of the Lutsotso sentence.
Argument Licensing and Agreement in Zulu | MITWPL
The objectives of this study are to: identify verbal morphology that license overt arguments in Lutsotso, determine the order of the argument licensing morphemes and the constraints that govern their occurrence and determine the licensing of null arguments in the sentence structure of Lutsotso. The research adopted a descriptive research design that deals with naturally occurring phenomena using data which may either be collected first hand or taken from already existing data sources.
The study population was Lutsotso native speakers. The study targeted a sample size of 21 Lutsotso native speakers. A contract, on the other hand, is an exchange of obligations, either of promises for promises or of promises of future performance for present performance or payment.
The above quote rests on a specific view of contract formation. Contracts require offer, acceptance and in some places consideration reciprocity. Contracts in those countries do not require a promise of payment, as specified by Moglen, which then allows unilateral promises and licences.
Arguments Against ILMT – What Does and Doesn’t Work?
To assume that American contract law applies everywhere seems a bit odd. Why would anyone want to make a distinction between a contract and a licence? There are some useful procedural reasons to identify a copyright licence in some jurisdictions.
- Argument licensing and agreement!
- Related Items.
- FTC, Qualcomm give closing arguments in trial over mobile chip licenses?
- Change, Transformation and Development.
For example, there may be different legal effects if a contract is a licence, or sale of goods, or sale of services. But those three are still contracts! As far as I can tell, Moglen declares that he has a problem with the global variability of contract law. Moglen, it is not up to him to decide if contract law applies to a licence, it is up to the courts.
- Licensing Vocabulary | LIBLICENSE!
- Argument licensing and agreement in Zulu.
- Related Items?
- World Directory of Crystallographers: And of Other Scientists Employing Crystallographic Methods.
I find a part of the interview very telling. Here Moglen says:. That is a dangerous position!
Firstly, how do you prove that the user is under a licence other than by contractual law principles? Secondly, this argument would seem to suggest that any user of copyright works can be taken to court, and only then they can prove that they actually had a licence to use the work. Imagine the same paragraph above being said by Bill Gates and not by Eben Moglen, and you will get why this is such a dangerous position! As a colleague pointed out to me, according to this view, all use is a priori infringement until proven otherwise.
The Federal Circuit upheld this decision. The panel Prost, Wallach, and Stoll ruled that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in all contracts under California law cannot be deemed to impose substantive requirements above those laid out in the agreement.
This Federal Circuit decision provides guidance for negotiating and drafting field of use restrictions in patent license agreements. This decision suggests that courts, at least those applying California law, will not enforce substantive obligations outside of those expressly set forth in the agreement. Thus, parties to patent license agreements should consider expressly enumerating a what activities are prohibited outside of the field of use, and b specific consequences for breaching such prohibitions.