Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> In this case, permission to copy was given depending on proper
>> attribution.  Proper attribution was not made, so no permission to copy
>> was available.
>
> If you rent me an apartment "depending on proper" monthly payment, my
> failure to pay doesn't automatically nullify the permission to occupy
> your apartment and somehow making me liable for
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausfriedensbruch etc. See the light now,
> silly dak?

You are confusing a _contract_ with a _license_.  In the case of the
appartment, both parties stipulate their willingness to fulfill the
contractual relationship they have agreed on.  The contract is first
established, later breached.  If the landlord can establish that the
tenant never intended to fulfill his contractual duties, he might be
able to get the contract annulled, in which case continued residence
might indeed become a case of Hausfriedensbruch.  Similarly, if he gets
the contract terminated and an eviction order given, the tenant will
have to pay the rent up to the time of termination, and may be liable to
the equivalent to Hausfriedensbruch eventually if he does not obey the
eviction order.

Anyway, the important point is that we are talking about a contract
signed by two parties, not a unilateral license grant under conditions.

If we have no stipulation of willingness of the licensee to accept the
license terms, the license may as well be non-existent with regard to
the relationship of the parties.

-- 
David Kastrup