gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:46:02 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> No, here a case was _cited_ in comparison where indeed a contract was in
>> issue.  That does not mean that the GPL is a contract as well, but it
>> means that once where a license is _used_, _then_ the respective license
>> condition adherence is held to a similar standard as contracts are, so
>> contract case law is applicable, except that there is no invalidation
>> through single invalid clauses and that there can't be contractual, but
>> merely actual damages claimed.
>
> LOL.
>
> You are truly retarded, dak.

Reassuring coming from someone with such a warped perception as yours.

> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20061123091221786
>
> "SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the
> Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC
> 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is "well settled"
> that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Kronos,
> Inc. v. AVX Corp., 612 N.E.2d 289, 292 (N.Y. 1993)  ("Nominal damages
> are always available in breach of contract action".). "

So you have no clue about the term "nominal damages".  Look it up then.
Nominal charges are _exactly_ used when a party would have the right to
claim _actual_ damages rather than _contractual_ damages.

So again, you are quoting something that flatly says the opposite of
what you intend to show, and hopping with glee in the process.

Talk about "truly retarded".

-- 
David Kastrup


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]