Yorick Cool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:49:33PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > Climbing a 4,000 foot mountain is certainly possible. Its just > > inconvenient [well, unless you do that kind of stuff for fun]. > > Personally, I do not find this license to be free, even though its just > > a "convenience" issue. > > Seeing as that is a void condition which is totally unenforceable[1], the > license is just the same as if the condition were inexistent, so yeah, > it's as good as free. <snip> > [1] This is at least the case in civil law countries. I have a few > doubts about common law countries. >
It's almost certainly enforcable in common law countries: contracts can require you to do pretty much anything which isn't illegal, and licenses of this sort are definitely contracts (because they impose restrictions on your activities which would be unrestricted without acceptance of the license). If you use the copyrighted work (in a way which requires permission under copyright law) without a valid license, you are infringing copyright. And the copyright holder can license the work in exchange for nearly any compensation he likes. Perhaps he has a strong personal interest in promoting mountain climbing. There is a doctrine of "copyright misuse", but it's used very rarely and appears to be very narrow. I don't know about civil law countries, but I'd love to know why you think it isn't enforcable there. -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Insert famous quote here] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
