'Evening, Rjack! Rjack <[email protected]> wrote:
> Where in it's utterly *non-precendental* and erroneous decision did > the CAFC state that *all* open license requirements are enforceable > copyright conditions? The CAFC ruled on the terms of the *Artistic > License* as to whether certain terms were conditions limiting the > scope of the grant or "conditions precendent". The CAFC contradicted > itself when it cited Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911). > I am beginning to suspect that Free Softare advocates are > intellectually incapable of grasping the difference between > a permitted scope of use condition and a condition precedent in > a copyright license. This Free Software advocate could grasp the difference if he wanted, but really doesn't give a damn. It really isn't all that important. It's been sorted out by lawyers, and they'll have done their job right. When an error surfaces, they'll correct it. > One restricts the *scope* of the rights grant, > the other establishes the *existence* of the rights grant. The > distinction seems to exceed the GNUtians cognitive abilities. <Yawn>. > Sincerely, > Rjack -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
