Re: Settlements

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> On 3/1/2010 2:16 PM, RJack wrote:
>
>> The only use involved here is copying and distribution, which are
>> among the enumerated exclusive rights of the statute.
>
> You are finally seeing the light Hyman! Copying and distribution are
> *expressly* permitted by the Artistic license with neither scope of use
> restriction nor condition precedent to limit the licensed rights -- the
> only contractual covenants such as promises to "attribute" and
> "licensing".

    Preamble

    This license establishes the terms under which a given free software
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Package may be copied, modified, distributed, and/or redistributed. The
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    intent is that the Copyright Holder maintains some artistic control over
    the development of that Package while still keeping the Package
    available as open source and free software.


    Permissions for Redistribution of the Standard Version

    (2) You may Distribute verbatim copies of the Source form of the
    Standard Version of this Package in any medium without restriction,
    either gratis or for a Distributor Fee, provided that you duplicate
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    all of the original copyright notices and associated disclaimers. At
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    your discretion, such verbatim copies may or may not include a
    Compiled form of the Package.


And so forth and so on.  Your "with neither scope of use restriction nor
condition precedent" can't be called much more than a desperate lie.

> I knew you'd get it sooner or later! When did you finally realize that
> simply using a phrase like "provided that" cannot magically turn a
> contractual covenant into a scope of use restriction or condition
> precedent?

There is no contract to which two parties agreed (where is the
signature?  Where an act of contract forming?), so we can't claim a
contractual covenant.

> The Supreme Court stated that fact with crystal clarity:
>
> "An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
> conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
> copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S.,
> at 154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464
> U.S.  417 (1984).

Well since the unlicensed use conflicts with the exclusive rights to
copy and modification without a license, there we are.

You can't _both_ claim that the license permits copying and modification
while at the same time claiming that the conditions for which it does so
are not conditions.

> Supreme Court vs. moron. Court wins.

You bet it does.  And the moron does not even understand the words the
court uses.

-- 
David Kastrup