RJack <u...@example.net> writes: > If you are so smart at interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil > Procedure, why are you so dumb at grasping doctrines like preemption > and promissory estoppel?
They don't apply where there is no preemption and no promissory estoppel. > Could it be that you actually know the GPL is preempted and thus GPL > code is quasi-public domain due to promissory estoppel? If the GPL is invalid, there is no other license for copying and modification. It is nonsensical to at once claim it being invalid, then using "promissory estoppel" claims as an excuse to take its permissions without heeding the conditions under which they are given. You can't pull it out of your hat only when you need it and ignore it otherwise. > Perhaps your feigned ignorance is just stubbornness (like Hyman > Rosen)? There is no ignorance feigned. If repeating obvious statements to cranks purporting not to get them is "stubbornness", I might be guilty of that. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
