"Conditions" is the proper term of art for a license. Thanks, Van
__________________________ Van Lindberg [email protected] m: 214.364.7985 On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 8:49 AM Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> wrote: > It would be really nice if CAL.next would stop calling unconditional > covenants/duties/obligations "conditions". > > https://medium.com/policy/medium-terms-of-service-9db0094a1e0f > > "...in a court located in San Francisco, California." > > > https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&division=3.&title=2.&part=1.&chapter=3.&article= > > > CHAPTER 3. Conditional Obligations [1434 - 1442] ( Chapter 3 enacted > 1872. ) > > 1434. An obligation is conditional, when the rights or duties of any > party thereto depend upon the occurrence of an uncertain event. > (Enacted 1872.) > > 1435. Conditions may be precedent, concurrent, or subsequent. > (Enacted 1872.) > > 1436. A condition precedent is one which is to be performed before some > right dependent thereon accrues, or some act dependent thereon is performed. > (Enacted 1872.) > > 1437. Conditions concurrent are those which are mutually dependent, and > are to be performed at the same time. > (Enacted 1872.) > > 1438. A condition subsequent is one referring to a future event, upon the > happening of which the obligation becomes no longer binding upon the other > party, if he chooses to avail himself of the condition. > (Enacted 1872.) > > 1439. Before any party to an obligation can require another party to > perform any act under it, he must fulfill all conditions precedent thereto > imposed upon himself; and must be able and offer to fulfill all conditions > concurrent so imposed upon him on the like fulfillment by the other party, > except as provided by the next section. > (Enacted 1872.) > > 1440. If a party to an obligation gives notice to another, before the > latter is in default, that he will not perform the same upon his part, and > does not retract such notice before the time at which performance upon his > part is due, such other party is entitled to enforce the obligation without > previously performing or offering to perform any conditions upon his part > in favor of the former party. > (Enacted 1872.) > > 1441. A condition in a contract, the fulfillment of which is impossible > or unlawful, within the meaning of the Article on the Object of Contracts, > or which is repugnant to the nature of the interest created by the > contract, is void. > (Enacted 1872.) > > 1442. A condition involving a forfeiture must be strictly interpreted > against the party for whose benefit it is created. > (Enacted 1872.) > > Am Mi., 24. Juli 2019 um 03:54 Uhr schrieb VanL <[email protected]>: > >> Various individuals at my client, including Arthur, are reviewing a >> second draft of the CAL before it is widely shared. When they ate done with >> their review, the new draft will be posted here. >> >> As for Arthur, it is his prerogative to join or not join any discussion >> he would like. He is definitely aware of the discussions here. >> >> Also, I would note that while my day job is as a lawyer, I understand the >> technical details underlying the things I discuss. >> >> Thanks, >> Van >> >> >> >> __________________________ >> Van Lindberg >> [email protected] >> m: 214.364.7985 >> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 2:37 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Are we finished discussing the Cryptographic Autonomy License? >>> >>> I am disappointed that Arthur Brock did not step up to explain his >>> license and left all of the representation to Van. Van is not really an >>> expert in the technical needs that motivated Arthur to ask him to work on >>> that license, and in my private correspondence with Arthur, it seemed he >>> had something to say. >>> >>> Van, this is not a court of law and I don't think there is a downside in >>> having the client talk with us. Could you invite him to? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Bruce >>> _______________________________________________ >>> License-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> >>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> License-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >> > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
