Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: > [...] >> Sorry, but according to CAFC, that's exactly what happens: >> <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> >> The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of >> conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and >> distribute are granted Aprovided that@ the conditions are met. >> Under California contract law, "provided that" typically >> denotes a condition. > > “Under California contract law, “provided that” typically denotes a > condition. See, e.g., Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911)” > > The CAFC further ruled: > > “The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the > open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes...” > > How on earth can “disclosure and explanation of changes” come before (be > a condition precedent) to the license grant?
Causality does not necessarily imply temporal order in the legal world, because the legal _meaning_ of an act might sometimes be established only at a later point of time. Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft. The relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register. Passing a cash register, however, is not what the law considers a crime. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss