Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> You did not understand a word of what you were replying to, again. The >> whole point was that in the case of a _license_, as opposed to a >> contract, any such stipulation of a _penalty_ is _invalid_, and _only_ >> sustained damages can actually be claimed. > > Uh silly dak. A copyright license IS A CONTRACT in U.S.A., Germany, and > elsewhere except the GNU Republic in alternative universe. > > http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Transactions/TakingTheCase.pdf > > "The GPL is not just a method for a licensor to give up rights that he > could otherwise enforce in court; the GPL imposes obligations on the > licensee as well, which the licensee must accept.27
_Which_ _the_ _licensee_ _must_ _accept_. Nobody forces him. > It is likely that a court, "It is likely" in some arbitrary commentary is not the same as "IS A". Really, you should stop quoting stuff that contradicts you. > in the U.S. or abroad, would recognize the GPL as a contract. In fact, > the GPL has been cited as a contract, and breach of the GPL as a > contract was alleged, "was alleged". Great. > 28. See Countercl., at ¶¶ 110–118, Progressive Software Corp. v. MySQL > AB, 195 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002); First Am. Compl. ¶ 50, > MontaVista Software, Inc. v. Lineo, Inc., No. 2:02 CV-0309J (D. Utah > filed July 23, 2002) (“The aforesaid individual or joint acts of > Defendants constitute a breach of the GPL.”). Which is short for "constitute a breach of the terms and conditions of the GPL". > "COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)" Sigh. Look and behold, we have here a _count_ of charges that is supposed to be exhaustive in case the court finds some of the charges don't apply for whatever reason. If a court is going to entertain the line of reasoning "this looks like a contract, let's rule on that", you better want an argument in for that, just to make sure. You don't want to go to higher courts unnecessarily. But until such a reasoning appears in the _ruling_ but just in one of a count of charges, it has no legal precedence whatsoever. That this is "COUNT VIII" should tell you something about the priorities of this approach from the plaintiff. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss