David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> writes:
"the alleged license at issue in this case and/or certain
provisions contained therein are illegal, unconscionable and barred
by public policy as well as by statutory and case law."
They'll have a fun time
a) proving that statement
b) telling the court what other permission short of "the alleged
license" they have for copying and distribution.
a) The court will immediately find the GPL unenforceable because of the
preemption doctrine established by 17 USC sec. 301(a).
b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies.
Unlike many GNUtians, the court won't pretend that neither doctrine exists.
That's pretty much the usual clueless first response.
Mindless denial is always a GNUtians first response.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
