The below is a cool example Ben :-), but it isn't a fair comparison. If you change the house numbers to be the same, then _that_ is an equivalent example.
Simon On 21/09/2001 at 09:49 Ben Bucksch wrote: >Simon P. Lucy wrote: > >>No dual licence where the language of both licences is in the same file >has ever been tested in court, its the equivalent to having two contracts >with conflicting terms. >> >OK, let's that that example. We have > >Template contract 1: >"A allows B to use the house 1, Great Street, which is owned by A. In >exchange, >B allows A to use the house 10, Great Street, which is owned by B." > >Template contract 2: >"B must keep a distance of 10 meters to house 1, Great Street, which is >owned by A. Similarily, >A must keep a distance of 10 meters to house 10, Great Street, which is >owned by B. But >A allows B to use the car BNM, which is owned by A. In exchange, >B allows A to use the car XCV, which is owned by B." > >Contract 3: >"A allows B to follow contract 1 or contract 2." > >Contract 3 is signed by A. (Let's assume B also signed contract 3.) > >Now, if B goes into house 1, Great Street, then A can go into house 10, >Great Street. If B uses car BNM *and* goes into house 1, Great Street >(and assuming those are the only contracts between them), then A can sue B. > >Surely complicated, but I see no problem.
