[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

From: RJack
Subject: Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:15:16 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20100228)

David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 12:02 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Implicit in a nonexclusive copyright license is the promise not
to sue for copyright infringement.
But it is only an anti-GPL crank who would believe that he could
accept the permissions of a license but not its obligations.
The contract laws recognize a concept called "efficient breach"
which *encourages* breach of (enforcable) obligations if it's
economically efficient to do so.  Compliance with license/contract
obligations is almost always voluntary -- if you choose not to
comply, then you don't have to. You merely have to compensate the
non-breaching party for his expectancy interest. Hint: damages.

That's the case with a contract.  But if you choose not to comply
with licensing conditions, the license just does not apply.

Since you and Hyman are incapable of understanding the meaning and
operation of a "condition precedent" as used in copyright contracts,
you will forever remain confused concerning licensing fundamentals.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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