Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> In this case, permission to copy was given depending on proper >> attribution. Proper attribution was not made, so no permission to copy >> was available. > > If you rent me an apartment "depending on proper" monthly payment, my > failure to pay doesn't automatically nullify the permission to occupy > your apartment and somehow making me liable for > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausfriedensbruch etc. See the light now, > silly dak?
You are confusing a _contract_ with a _license_. In the case of the appartment, both parties stipulate their willingness to fulfill the contractual relationship they have agreed on. The contract is first established, later breached. If the landlord can establish that the tenant never intended to fulfill his contractual duties, he might be able to get the contract annulled, in which case continued residence might indeed become a case of Hausfriedensbruch. Similarly, if he gets the contract terminated and an eviction order given, the tenant will have to pay the rent up to the time of termination, and may be liable to the equivalent to Hausfriedensbruch eventually if he does not obey the eviction order. Anyway, the important point is that we are talking about a contract signed by two parties, not a unilateral license grant under conditions. If we have no stipulation of willingness of the licensee to accept the license terms, the license may as well be non-existent with regard to the relationship of the parties. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
