David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes:
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.
That's the case with a contract. But if you choose not to comply
with licensing conditions, the license just does not apply.
Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and
operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts,
you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals.
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list