[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:43:58 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081105)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:

Well, the GPL says "if you wish to do X, which normally you would not
be permitted to do by copyright law, you may do so provided you do Y".
That's why it's a license - the recipient may use its provisions or
not, and it requires no contact between the recipient and distributor.

All licenses are contracts. That a contract has "conditions" (precedent or subsequent} makes it no less a contract. There is no difference between one contract that states, "You may copy my work if you *promise* (a covenant) to pay me" and another that states, "You may copy my work *provided* (a condition) that you pay me". One contains a covenant and the other a condition but they are both contract terms.

Restatement (Second) of Contracts)
                 Article 224
Condition Defined:
A condition is an event, not certain to occur, which must occur, unless its non-occurrence is excused, before performance under a contract becomes due.

I repeat, if it is a license it is a contract.


reply via email to

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