On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:20:57 +0200 (CEST), "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > 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.
The $1 is consideration, so that license would be a contract. Anyway, whether it's a bare license or a contract: the scope of the license grant can be limited only by limits on the *acts themselves*. For example: - you may copy, but no changes - you may copy 1,000 times - you may translate into Dutch and sell in EU countries - you may recite the text on stage - you may put the photo on your website but not anywhere else We were talking about payment. Payment is not a *limit on the act* it is *in consideration of* the act. You cannot reframe consideration as a limit on the act. Legally speaking "you may copy but only if you pay $1 per copy" is *the same* as "you may copy, and you will pay me $1 per copy". Our resident quote-spewing troll does prove useful occasionally: he cited GRAHAM v JAMES which is exactly on point under New York law. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/2nd/969224.html The case quotes from Nimmer on Copyright: "[i]f the [licensee's] improper conduct constitutes a breach of a covenant undertaken by the [licensee] . . . and if such covenant constitutes an enforcible contractual obligation, then the [licensor] will have a cause of action for breach of contract," not copyright infringement. The payment is a *covenant*, a promise made by the licensee. In the GPL's case, the requirement to provide source is the covenant. Merijn _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
