Re: Settlements

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> [...]
>> Sorry, but according to CAFC, that's exactly what happens:
>> <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf>
>>      The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of
>>      conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and
>>      distribute are granted Aprovided that@ the conditions are met.
>>      Under California contract law, "provided that" typically
>>      denotes a condition.
>
> “Under California contract law, “provided that” typically denotes a
> condition. See, e.g., Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911)”
>
> The CAFC further ruled: 
>
> “The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the
> open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes...” 
>
> How on earth can “disclosure and explanation of changes” come before (be
> a condition precedent) to the license grant? 

Causality does not necessarily imply temporal order in the legal world,
because the legal _meaning_ of an act might sometimes be established
only at a later point of time.

Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft.  The
relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the
status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register.
Passing a cash register, however, is not what the law considers a crime.

-- 
David Kastrup