"amicus_curious" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "David Kastrup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The GPL is not a contract but a license. It spells the conditions >> you have to meet. >> > I am not aware of any real distinction in the law based on the use of > the two terms,
You can't state contractual penalties in a license short of withdrawal of the license. In contrast, you can state penalties for non-compliance in a contract. That is a very real distinction. >>> In the case of the GPL, it is not so clear. If it is the same >>> thing, as you say, the suit would be for the damage caused to the >>> original author due to the violator not publishing the source code. >> >> Uh no. Damages are in addition to coming into compliance. >> > I would rather think that they were the direct consequence of not > coming into compliance. No, you are confusing penalties (which are a direct consequence, but not applicable to licenses) with damages (which have to be assessed on a case by case basis and just recompensate the damaged party for the actually suffered and documented harm). -- 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
