Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> amicus_curious wrote:


> Well, the GPL says "if you wish to do X, which normally you would not
> be permitted to do by copyright law, you may do so provided you do Y".
> That's why it's a license - the recipient may use its provisions or
> not, and it requires no contact between the recipient and distributor.

All licenses are contracts. That a contract has "conditions" 
(precedent or subsequent} makes it no less a contract. There is no 
difference between one contract that states, "You may copy my work 
if you *promise* (a covenant) to pay me" and another that states, 
"You may copy my work *provided* (a condition) that you pay me". One 
contains a covenant and the other a condition but they are both 
contract terms.

****************************************************************
Restatement (Second) of Contracts)
                 Article 224
Condition Defined:
     A condition is an event, not certain to occur, which must 
occur, unless its non-occurrence is excused, before performance 
under a contract becomes due.
****************************************************************

I repeat, if it is a license it is a contract.

Sincerely,
Rjack