Re: GNU licenses

[Merijn de Weerd]

On Tue,  5 Sep 2006 10:54:46 +0200 (CEST), "Alfred M. Szmidt"
<ams@gnu.org> said:
>    The "not paying $1 per copy" is not part of the authorized act. The
>    contract establishes two acts: 1) One party authorizes the other
>    party to copy 2) The other party accepts the obligation to pay for
>    each copy
> 
> Of course the "not paying $1 per copy" is part of the authorised act.
> That you insist on listing them as two sperate things is completely
> irrelevant.

We're not getting through to each other. How do I say this without
getting into a "is too/is not".

When we enter into a contract that says "you may copy, at cost of $1 per
copy", then we both have an obligation as a result. I have to tolerate
the copying, you have to pay $1 for every copy.

If you do not pay, you are in breach of contract. I then take you to
state court. Since the payment is a material part of the contract, I can
claim damages or even terminate the contract. Damages could be the
royalties due with interest, maybe punitive damages as well. If the
court terminates, you /no longer/ have a license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract

What I *cannot* do is sue you for copyright infringement in federal
court. I waived that right by licensing you. The federal court will look
at the license you raised as a defense, see that the act "copying" is
mentioned there, and throw me out telling me to go to state court to
collect my money.

Merijn