Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > FOSS licenses have neither scope-of-use limitations nor any 
> > conditions precedent to the grant of rights. Hence FOSS 
> > licensors "can sue only for breach of contract".
>
> False, of course. 
> <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> The Artistic 
> License states on its face that the document creates conditions: 
> "The intent of this document is to state the conditions under 
> which a Package may be copied." (Emphasis added.) The Artistic 
> License also uses the traditional language of conditions by 
> noting that the rights to copy, modify, and distribute are 
> granted "provided that" the conditions are met.


> Under California contract law, "provided that" typically denotes 
> a condition.

I agree that typically "provided that" may denote a contractual
condition. So what?

For a contractual "condition" to be relevant to an infringement
claim it must constitute a "condition precedent" to the grant of
rights in the contract. If a valid condition precedent is not
satisfied then no license exists and infringement occurs.

Sigh. . .

The CAFC never mentioned that the word "condition" has two different
meanings in a license context. I doubt Freetards will *ever* be able
to understand the legal difference between a traditional contractual
"condition" precedent and a non-contractual "condition" used to
denote a "scope of use" restriction. The subject requires more
cognitive ability than Freetards can muster.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)