David Kastrup wrote:
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.
Never happen. Your pear shaped, delectable butt is always on one's
mind. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh...
Sincerely,
RJack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
