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

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

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:11:26 -0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> You did not understand a word of what you were replying to, again.  The
>> whole point was that in the case of a _license_, as opposed to a
>> contract, any such stipulation of a _penalty_ is _invalid_, and _only_
>> sustained damages can actually be claimed.
>
> Uh silly dak. A copyright license IS A CONTRACT in U.S.A., Germany, and
> elsewhere except the GNU Republic in alternative universe.
>
> http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Transactions/TakingTheCase.pdf
>
> "The GPL is not just a method for a licensor to give up rights that he
> could otherwise enforce in court; the GPL imposes obligations on the
> licensee as well, which the licensee must accept.27

_Which_ _the_ _licensee_ _must_ _accept_.  Nobody forces him.

> It is likely that a court,

"It is likely" in some arbitrary commentary is not the same as "IS A".

Really, you should stop quoting stuff that contradicts you.

> in the U.S. or abroad, would recognize the GPL as a contract. In fact,
> the GPL has been cited as a contract, and breach of the GPL as a
> contract was alleged,

"was alleged".  Great.

> 28. See Countercl., at ¶¶ 110–118, Progressive Software Corp. v. MySQL
> AB, 195 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002); First Am. Compl. ¶ 50,
> MontaVista Software, Inc. v. Lineo, Inc., No. 2:02 CV-0309J (D. Utah
> filed July 23, 2002) (“The aforesaid individual or joint acts of
> Defendants constitute a breach of the GPL.”).

Which is short for "constitute a breach of the terms and conditions of
the GPL".

> "COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)"

Sigh.  Look and behold, we have here a _count_ of charges that is
supposed to be exhaustive in case the court finds some of the charges
don't apply for whatever reason.

If a court is going to entertain the line of reasoning "this looks like
a contract, let's rule on that", you better want an argument in for
that, just to make sure.  You don't want to go to higher courts
unnecessarily.

But until such a reasoning appears in the _ruling_ but just in one of a
count of charges, it has no legal precedence whatsoever.

That this is "COUNT VIII" should tell you something about the priorities
of this approach from the plaintiff.

-- 
David Kastrup


reply via email to

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