> 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 > > Of course the "not paying $1 per copy" is part of the authorised > act. That you insist on listing them as two sperate things is > completely irrelevant.
We're not getting through to each other. How do I say this without getting into a "is too/is not". But "is too/is not" arguments are so much more fun!! When we enter into a contract that says "you may copy, at cost of $1 per copy", then we both have an obligation as a result. I have to tolerate the copying, you have to pay $1 for every copy. Yes, but this is a copyright license, not a contract. So contract law isn't relevant here. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
