Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 4/13/2010 12:02 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Implicit in a nonexclusive copyright license is the promise not to sue
> > for copyright infringement.
> But it is only an anti-GPL crank who would believe that
> he could accept the permissions of a license but not its
> obligations.

The contract laws recognize a concept called "efficient breach" which
*encourages* breach of (enforcable) obligations if it's economically
efficient to do so. Compliance with license/contract obligations is 
almost always voluntary -- if you choose not to comply, then you don't 
have to. You merely have to compensate the non-breaching party for his 
expectancy interest. Hint: damages.

See also:


"Posner notes that: "When a breach of contract is established, the issue
becomes one the proper remedy. A starting point for analysis is Holmes's
view that is not the policy of the law to compel adherence to contracts
but only to require each party to choose between performing in
accordance with the contract and compensating the other party for any
injury resulting from a failure to perform. This view contains an
important economic insight." (Economic Analysis of Law, Boston-Toronto,
1977, p. 88).

In accordance with the above reasoning, Cooter and Ulen, in turn, state:
"We define an efficient breach as follows: a breach of contract is more
efficient than performance of the contract when the costs of performance
exceed the benefits to all the parties". "

Got it now, retard?


P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to