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 16:11:25 -0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> >> > [...]
>> >> >> The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is
>> >> >
>> >> > Dak, please stop ignoring the facts:
>> >> >
>> >> > It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB
>> >> > contract.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
>> >> >
>> >> > "The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor
>> >> > the right to copy, ..."
>> >>
>> >> Germany might call things different, but you still have the situation
>> >> that a contractual arrangement to which one party has not given its
>> >> implicit or explicit consent differs in the details of execution and
>> >> enforcement.
>> >>
>> >> For one thing, the license can't stipulate contractual penalties for
>> >> non-conformance.
>> >
>> > 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);
>> 
>> Get somebody to explain the difference of "contractual penalties" and
>> "nominal damages" to you.
>
> Did you read the rest of my quote, silly dak?

Sure.  Nothing relevant as usual.

>> The former can be an arbitrary amount agreed upon in advance by the
>> contract parties.
>
> In absence of such stipulation in contract, a non-breaching party must
> simply establish the damages sustained.

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.

-- 
David Kastrup


reply via email to

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