Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Forgot one thing... > > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Karen Hill wrote: >> >> >> >> "I think, of the 500 distributions tracked by DistroWatch, probably 450 >> >> of them are in trouble right now per this position.", >> > >> > Criminal penalties (costs plus attorney's fees in a civil action >> > aside for a moment), per FSF's own theory of enforcement through >> > cause of action for copyright infringement (not breach of >> > contract claim), > > [...] > >> For whom? A "criminal penalty" is not handed over to a prospective >> plaintiff in a contract case. > > Sorry, dak. (Oh dear, I still can't believe that you now realize that > Moglen is a bullshit rapper.)
You are fantasizing. Again: licenses _are_ held to the standards of contracts concerning the evaluation of the compliance with its terms. Where they are _not_ held to the standard of contracts is where the consent of the licensee is concerned: the licensee can't escape the requirements of the license by claiming non-agreement. There is no requirement for a signature or similar stuff. I actually meant to write "civil case" above. That's more accurate, even though concerning the check for compliance with terms there is no difference to a contract case. > I meant > > Criminal penalties (costs plus attorney's fees in a civil action) > aside for a moment, ... > > not > > Criminal penalties (costs plus attorney's fees in a civil action > aside for a moment), ... > > Just a typo, but what an Eagle Eye you have dear, good capture. ;-) Whatever. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
