Rjack wrote:
Aren't you a being a little presumptuous when you simply ignore the doctrine of promissory estoppel when considering a failed license?
Of course not. The GPL clearly spells out its requirements. No one can claim to have been promised anything other than what the license itself states, so no one should be acting in expectation of anything besides the words of the GPL. There may be people like you who incorrectly believe that the limits of the GPL can be ignored while its permissions can be taken, but those people are reasoning externally. They can hardly claim that the GPL has promised them things that it clearly states that it does not allow. Or rather, they can claim that, but they'll be laughed out of court. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
