Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2006-09-03, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Merijn de Weerd writes: >>> If someone accepts a license, then does not adhere to the terms, >>> your sole action is to sue for breach. You can't say he is >>> infringing, since you licensed him to do the acts. He just does >>> not adhere to your conditions. >> >> No. You file against him for copyright infringement. You don't >> mention the license. He then has to present the license as a >> defense. When he does so you argue that he has no license to do >> the things he is doing and so is infringing your copyright. > > To which he'd respond that he is not infringing your copyright since > he has a license that authorizes him to do the acts in question. The > only issue is whether his performance of his side of the contract is > adequate. That's contract, not copyright law.
Actually, interpretation of the terms of a license is more or less the same process as with contracts, but in my opinion, we are still more or less in the realm of copyright law, though with the required expertise for contract law. In practice, it is rather hard to say what law might ultimately be decisive, since in almost every case up to now the phrase "To which he'd respond" has ended in the court saying "Your reply means this and that. Are you sure you want to dig yourself in any deeper?" and an out-of-court settlement. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss