[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: More FSF hypocrisy

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:39:28 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
FOSS licenses have neither scope-of-use limitations nor any conditions precedent to the grant of rights. Hence FOSS licensors "can sue only for breach of contract".

False, of course. <> The Artistic License states on its face that the document creates conditions: "The intent of this document is to state the conditions under which a Package may be copied." (Emphasis added.) The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and distribute are granted "provided that" the conditions are met.

Under California contract law, "provided that" typically denotes a condition.

I agree that typically "provided that" may denote a contractual
condition. So what?

For a contractual "condition" to be relevant to an infringement
claim it must constitute a "condition precedent" to the grant of
rights in the contract. If a valid condition precedent is not
satisfied then no license exists and infringement occurs.

Sigh. . .

The CAFC never mentioned that the word "condition" has two different
meanings in a license context. I doubt Freetards will *ever* be able
to understand the legal difference between a traditional contractual
"condition" precedent and a non-contractual "condition" used to
denote a "scope of use" restriction. The subject requires more
cognitive ability than Freetards can muster.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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