Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander

[Alexander Terekhov]

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.

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".). "

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)