On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote: > I think you mean it's not likely to be in front of a judge if the license > steward *means* that. If the license steward *says* it, but doesn't > really mean it (or changes his/her mind), (s)he may try suing anyway.
I meant what I said. I don't imagine there are very many license stewards running around saying things they don't mean. As I've already pointed out I've allowed room for the possibility of things going awry in what I said already. But as it stands, let's assume it does get before a court. I'm pretty sure before the court would even end up bothering looking at the copyright issue it'd have to deal with the promissory estoppel. So why are we wasting our time talking about something that would have to have the following unlikely occurrences happen to matter: 1) License steward says something they didn't mean. 2) Despite what they said license steward decides to go to court. 3) License steward finds a lawyer that actually will take this to court despite what they said. 4) Court decides that what they said wasn't a promissory estoppel. 5) Now we can talk about if the copyright license is copyrighted. That's not to say that it'll never happen or can't happen. Just that I don't see the point in discussing it. The circumstances without any sort of statement about the copyright status from a license steward gets to the core of what is being discussed on this thread and doesn't end up wasting our time discussing this. Ironically my attempt to point this out seems to have driven us further down the wasted path of discussing this. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
