[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:46:02 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> 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.

Reassuring coming from someone with such a warped perception as yours.

> "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".). "

So you have no clue about the term "nominal damages".  Look it up then.
Nominal charges are _exactly_ used when a party would have the right to
claim _actual_ damages rather than _contractual_ damages.

So again, you are quoting something that flatly says the opposite of
what you intend to show, and hopping with glee in the process.

Talk about "truly retarded".

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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