[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption |
Date: |
Tue, 04 May 2010 16:08:03 -0000 |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> 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 . . ."
>
> <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf>
> 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.
Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five?
Judge HOCHBERG: Of course five.
Abraham Lincoln: No, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg!
regards,
alexander.
P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system
so that I can do the builds."
Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."
Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, (continued)
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04