On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 02:22:21PM -0700, Ben Reser wrote: > 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.
Maybe it's still being discussed because most of us can't afford things getting to step 2, regardless of the strength of our defense. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
