[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Settlements

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Settlements
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:29:34 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> [...]
>> Sorry, but according to CAFC, that's exactly what happens:
>> <>
>>      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

reply via email to

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