Rahul Dhesi wrote:
[...]
> As always, there is a big problem with Rjack's quote (going beyond
> Rjack's laziness in providing no public link).
CAFC ( quoting http://www.rosenlaw.com/BadFactsMakeGoodLaw.pdf
):
["On August 13, 2008, in Jacobsen v. Katzer, Case Number 2008-1001"]
"The CAFC relied on a long-ago California Supreme Court decision to the
effect that a condition can be found by "attributing the usual and
ordinary signification to the language of the parties." [Pg. 1381,
citing Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911)] Thus the CAFC
determined that the Artistic License, when it also uses the phrase
"provided that," "denotes a condition" under California contract law.
[Pg. 1381] This does, however, raise an interesting question: Of the
current approved open source and Creative Commons licenses, which of
them clearly distinguish their conditions from their covenants, and
under which state's contract law do we analyze that question?"
SCO ( quoting http://groklaw.net/pdf/Novell-301.pdf
):
["DATED this 18th day of May, 2007."]
"As discussed by The Supreme Court of California, the term “provided”
may or may not indicate a condition, noting that “‘there is no magic in
the term [“provided”], and the clause in a contract is to be construed
from the words employed and from the purpose of the parties, gathered
from the whole instrument.’” Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 115 P. 743, 744 (Cal.
1911) (quoting Boston Safe Dep. and Trust Co. v. Thomas, 53 P. 472 (Kan.
1898) (finding that, based on a reading of an entire provision, a clause
containing “provided, that” was not a condition))."
Where is the truth (not going into the actual nature of conditions v.
covenants), Rahul?
Do you have a link to Diepenbrock v. Luiz, Rahul?
Californians, please help.
TIA.
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
|
