[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:08:02 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0

On 3/9/2010 4:31 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The Supreme Court of California. 159 Cal. 716, 115 P. 743 (1911). "The
term 'provided' may or may not indicate a condition . . . it is often a
nice question to determine whether it is a condition or a covenant and
courts always construe similar clauses in a deed as covenants rather
than as conditions, if they can reasonably do so . . ."

    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.

Sounds like CAFC found the question easy to answer.
And now it's answered, to the dismay of anti-GPL cranks.

reply via email to

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