I get that legalese is like human-interpretable pseudocode, but like, is there really no better way to word this? How can you grant without agreeing to grant?
> import, access, use, store, transmit, review, disclose, preserve, extract, modify, reproduce, share, use, display, copy, distribute, translate, transcribe, create derivative works
Wow this cover of Daft Punk - Technologic sucks.
I, for one, do not welcome our dystopian overlords, but am at a loss to what I can do about it. I try to use Jitsi or anything not-zoom whenever possible, but it's rarely my pick.
I think it's more that they're being explicit about the logical AND in that sentence. You agree to grant, AND grant them the permission.
I think it's a technicality about it being a "user agreement" so they probably have to use the word agree for certain clauses.
>>37022623 [a number of links regarding how to play with bots and bork training by"malforming" your inputs]
"Hereby grant" means the grant is (supposedly) immediately effective even for future-arising rights — and thus would take precedence (again, supposedly) over an agreement to grant the same rights in the future. [0]
(In the late oughts, this principle resulted in the biotech company Roche Molecular becoming a part-owner of a Stanford patent, because a Stanford researcher signed a "visitor NDA" with Roche that included present-assignment language, whereas the researcher's previous agreement with Stanford included only future-assignment language. The Stanford-Roche lawsuit on that subject went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.)
[0] https://toedtclassnotes.site44.com/Notes-on-Contract-Draftin...
Not necessarily — in some circumstances, the law might not recognize a present-day grant of an interest that doesn't exist now but might come into being in the future. (Cf. the Rule Against Perpetuities. [1])
The "hereby grants and agrees to grant" language is a fallback requirement — belt and suspenders, if you will.