David Kastrup wrote:
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.
Ahhh... I tried to give you the benefit of doubt. So... it really is
true ignorance and not feigned ignorance. Nothing to be particularly
proud of is it DAK?
Sincerely,
RJack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
