[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNU licenses
From: |
Alfred M. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: GNU licenses |
Date: |
Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:20:57 +0200 (CEST) |
> The "not paying $1 per copy" is not part of the authorized
> act. The contract establishes two acts: 1) One party
> authorizes the other party to copy 2) The other party accepts
> the obligation to pay for each copy
>
> Of course the "not paying $1 per copy" is part of the authorised
> act. That you insist on listing them as two sperate things is
> completely irrelevant.
We're not getting through to each other. How do I say this without
getting into a "is too/is not".
But "is too/is not" arguments are so much more fun!!
When we enter into a contract that says "you may copy, at cost of
$1 per copy", then we both have an obligation as a result. I have
to tolerate the copying, you have to pay $1 for every copy.
Yes, but this is a copyright license, not a contract. So contract law
isn't relevant here.
- Re: GNU licenses, (continued)
- Re: GNU licenses, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/09/04
- Message not available
- Re: GNU licenses, Merijn de Weerd, 2006/09/03
- Re: GNU licenses, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/09/04
- Re: GNU licenses, Merijn de Weerd, 2006/09/04
- Re: GNU licenses, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/09/05
- Re: GNU licenses, Merijn de Weerd, 2006/09/05
- Re: GNU licenses,
Alfred M. Szmidt <=
- Re: GNU licenses, Merijn de Weerd, 2006/09/05
- Message not available
- Re: GNU licenses, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/09/05
- Message not available
- Re: GNU licenses, John Hasler, 2006/09/05
- Re: GNU licenses, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/09/05
- Message not available
- Re: GNU licenses, David Kastrup, 2006/09/05
- Re: GNU licenses, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/09/05
- Message not available
- Re: GNU licenses, David Kastrup, 2006/09/05
- Re: GNU licenses, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/09/05
- Message not available
- Re: GNU licenses, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/09/05
- Message not available
- Re: GNU licenses, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/09/04