Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> > [...] >> >> The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is >> > >> > Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: >> > >> > It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB >> > contract. >> > >> > http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf >> > >> > "The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor >> > the right to copy, ..." >> >> Germany might call things different, but you still have the situation >> that a contractual arrangement to which one party has not given its >> implicit or explicit consent differs in the details of execution and >> enforcement. >> >> For one thing, the license can't stipulate contractual penalties for >> non-conformance. > > 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);
Get somebody to explain the difference of "contractual penalties" and "nominal damages" to you. The former can be an arbitrary amount agreed upon in advance by the contract parties. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss