> Doing a licensed act but failing to comply with conditions is > *breach of contract* If I authorize you to copy in return for > payment of $1 per copy, and you don't pay, you are in breach > of the license. Yet I can only sue you for non-performance > and demand the dollar per copy. > > The act of `not paying $1 per copy' wasn't licensed, so this is > copyright infringement (even according to your own words).
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. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
