RJack <u...@example.net> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: >> >>> 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.
You should keep away from the keyboard during your wet dreams. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
