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.
