[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:11:26 -0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> You did not understand a word of what you were replying to, again.  The
>> whole point was that in the case of a _license_, as opposed to a
>> contract, any such stipulation of a _penalty_ is _invalid_, and _only_
>> sustained damages can actually be claimed.
> Uh silly dak. A copyright license IS A CONTRACT in U.S.A., Germany, and
> elsewhere except the GNU Republic in alternative universe.
> "The GPL is not just a method for a licensor to give up rights that he
> could otherwise enforce in court; the GPL imposes obligations on the
> licensee as well, which the licensee must accept.27

_Which_ _the_ _licensee_ _must_ _accept_.  Nobody forces him.

> It is likely that a court,

"It is likely" in some arbitrary commentary is not the same as "IS A".

Really, you should stop quoting stuff that contradicts you.

> in the U.S. or abroad, would recognize the GPL as a contract. In fact,
> the GPL has been cited as a contract, and breach of the GPL as a
> contract was alleged,

"was alleged".  Great.

> 28. See Countercl., at ¶¶ 110–118, Progressive Software Corp. v. MySQL
> AB, 195 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002); First Am. Compl. ¶ 50,
> MontaVista Software, Inc. v. Lineo, Inc., No. 2:02 CV-0309J (D. Utah
> filed July 23, 2002) (“The aforesaid individual or joint acts of
> Defendants constitute a breach of the GPL.”).

Which is short for "constitute a breach of the terms and conditions of
the GPL".

> "COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)"

Sigh.  Look and behold, we have here a _count_ of charges that is
supposed to be exhaustive in case the court finds some of the charges
don't apply for whatever reason.

If a court is going to entertain the line of reasoning "this looks like
a contract, let's rule on that", you better want an argument in for
that, just to make sure.  You don't want to go to higher courts

But until such a reasoning appears in the _ruling_ but just in one of a
count of charges, it has no legal precedence whatsoever.

That this is "COUNT VIII" should tell you something about the priorities
of this approach from the plaintiff.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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