Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> No, here a case was _cited_ in comparison where indeed a contract was in >> issue. That does not mean that the GPL is a contract as well, but it >> means that once where a license is _used_, _then_ the respective license >> condition adherence is held to a similar standard as contracts are, so >> contract case law is applicable, except that there is no invalidation >> through single invalid clauses and that there can't be contractual, but >> merely actual damages claimed. > > LOL. > > You are truly retarded, dak.
Reassuring coming from someone with such a warped perception as yours. > http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20061123091221786 > > "SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the > Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC > 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is "well settled" > that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Kronos, > Inc. v. AVX Corp., 612 N.E.2d 289, 292 (N.Y. 1993) ("Nominal damages > are always available in breach of contract action".). " So you have no clue about the term "nominal damages". Look it up then. Nominal charges are _exactly_ used when a party would have the right to claim _actual_ damages rather than _contractual_ damages. So again, you are quoting something that flatly says the opposite of what you intend to show, and hopping with glee in the process. Talk about "truly retarded". -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
