Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: >> >> > RJack wrote: >> > [...] >> >> b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel >> >> applies. >> > >> > That's Versa's tenth defense. >> > >> > "TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE >> > (ESTOPPEL) >> > >> > On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are >> > barred by the doctrine of estoppel." >> >> Yeah, that one is hilarious as well. "Dear court, how could we assume >> that we had license conditions to heed when making use of a license? >> They promised we could use their software under GPL, that certainly must >> be enough to stop them from asking us to heed it." > > "Asking us to heed it" is a contract claim, not copyright infringement > claim you silly. > > By filing copyright infringement claim the licensor materially breaches > his obligation/consideration (i.e. obligation not to sue for > infringment) in a license agreement.
A licensor has an obligation not to sue for infringement when the license terms are breached? That's a funny world you are living in. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
