[License-discuss] End of CAL discussion? Paging Arthur Brock.

[VanL]

"Conditions" is the proper term of art for a license.

Thanks,
Van

__________________________
Van Lindberg
van.lindberg at gmail.com
m: 214.364.7985

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 8:49 AM Alexander Terekhov <herr.alter at gmail.com>
wrote:

> It would be really nice if CAL.next would stop calling unconditional
> covenants/duties/obligations "conditions".
>
> https://medium.com/policy/medium-terms-of-service-9db0094a1e0f
>
> "...in a court located in San Francisco, California."
>
>
> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&division=3.&title=2.&part=1.&chapter=3.&article=
>
>
> CHAPTER 3. Conditional Obligations [1434 - 1442]  ( Chapter 3 enacted
> 1872. )
>
> 1434.  An obligation is conditional, when the rights or duties of any
> party thereto depend upon the occurrence of an uncertain event.
> (Enacted 1872.)
>
> 1435.  Conditions may be precedent, concurrent, or subsequent.
> (Enacted 1872.)
>
> 1436.  A condition precedent is one which is to be performed before some
> right dependent thereon accrues, or some act dependent thereon is performed.
> (Enacted 1872.)
>
> 1437.  Conditions concurrent are those which are mutually dependent, and
> are to be performed at the same time.
> (Enacted 1872.)
>
> 1438.  A condition subsequent is one referring to a future event, upon the
> happening of which the obligation becomes no longer binding upon the other
> party, if he chooses to avail himself of the condition.
> (Enacted 1872.)
>
> 1439.  Before any party to an obligation can require another party to
> perform any act under it, he must fulfill all conditions precedent thereto
> imposed upon himself; and must be able and offer to fulfill all conditions
> concurrent so imposed upon him on the like fulfillment by the other party,
> except as provided by the next section.
> (Enacted 1872.)
>
> 1440.  If a party to an obligation gives notice to another, before the
> latter is in default, that he will not perform the same upon his part, and
> does not retract such notice before the time at which performance upon his
> part is due, such other party is entitled to enforce the obligation without
> previously performing or offering to perform any conditions upon his part
> in favor of the former party.
> (Enacted 1872.)
>
> 1441.  A condition in a contract, the fulfillment of which is impossible
> or unlawful, within the meaning of the Article on the Object of Contracts,
> or which is repugnant to the nature of the interest created by the
> contract, is void.
> (Enacted 1872.)
>
> 1442.  A condition involving a forfeiture must be strictly interpreted
> against the party for whose benefit it is created.
> (Enacted 1872.)
>
> Am Mi., 24. Juli 2019 um 03:54 Uhr schrieb VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com>:
>
>> Various individuals at my client, including Arthur, are reviewing a
>> second draft of the CAL before it is widely shared. When they ate done with
>> their review, the new draft will be posted here.
>>
>> As for Arthur, it is his prerogative to join or not join any discussion
>> he would like. He is definitely aware of the discussions here.
>>
>> Also, I would note that while my day job is as a lawyer, I understand the
>> technical details underlying the things I discuss.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Van
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________
>> Van Lindberg
>> van.lindberg at gmail.com
>> m: 214.364.7985
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 2:37 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
>> license-discuss at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Are we finished discussing the Cryptographic Autonomy License?
>>>
>>> I am disappointed that Arthur Brock did not step up to explain his
>>> license and left all of the representation to Van. Van is not really an
>>> expert in the technical needs that motivated Arthur to ask him to work on
>>> that license, and in my private correspondence with Arthur, it seemed he
>>> had something to say.
>>>
>>> Van, this is not a court of law and I don't think there is a downside in
>>> having the client talk with us. Could you invite him to?
>>>
>>>     Thanks
>>>
>>>     Bruce
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> License-discuss mailing list
>>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>>
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190724/b7117346/attachment-0001.html>