David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> 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."
We'll see how much of the defendants beliefs survives in court.
Once the GPL is invalidated, promissory estoppel will allow some
proprietary company to improve Linux and turn it into a real operating
system. Microsoft hates the thought that folks will understand the GPL
is unenforceable. That's the reason Microsoft embraced the GPL -- it
suppressed new competition.
Perhaps the Linux kernel will continue to be improved under a free (free
as in freedom) license such as BSD or Apache.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
