On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 8:58:19 AM UTC+12, Nobody wrote: > On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 09:15:55 -0700, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > > >> [quoted text muted] > > > > A licence is quite different from a contract. A contract requires some > > indication of explicit agreement by both parties, a licence does not. > > More precisely, it requires "mutual consideration", i.e. each party must > provide something of value to the other. If a party doesn't provide > something of value, they can't claim any harm in the event of a breach, as > they haven't lost anything (failure to receive what the other party > promised doesn't count, as it didn't belong to the recipient to start with).
Thanks for clarifying that. > This is why you sometimes see contracts where one party pays a nominal sum > (e.g. one pound/dollar/euro) in return for assets which may have > significant value but also significant liabilities attached. The fact that > they paid /something/ allows them to enforce the contract. I wonder about the point of that, though; I have heard of cases where the judge ruled that the contract had been breached, and awarded damages of one pound/dollar/euro. So other than winning a symbolic victory, what was the point? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
