On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 13:19:19 +0200 (CEST), "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Doing a licensed act but failing to comply with conditions is > *breach of contract* If I authorize you to copy in return for > payment of $1 per copy, and you don't pay, you are in breach of the > license. Yet I can only sue you for non-performance and demand the > dollar per copy. > > The act of `not paying $1 per copy' wasn't licensed, so this is > copyright infringement (even according to your own words).
The "not paying $1 per copy" is not part of the authorized act. The contract establishes two acts: 1) One party authorizes the other party to copy 2) The other party accepts the obligation to pay for each copy The act 1) is the license. The performance of act 2) does not affect the validity of act 1). The licensor would first have to revoke the contract, which he can do because of non-performance of the payment obligation by the licensee. But this is *not automatic* and until he does this *the license is valid*. Merijn _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
