On 4/9/2010 3:46 PM, RJack wrote:
Crank this Mr. Denier:
"To apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the proponent must
demonstrate: (1) a clear and unambiguous promise; (2) reasonable and
foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; and (3)
an injury sustained in reliance on the promise (see NGR, LLC v General
Elec. Co., 24 AD3d 425 [2005]). Estoppel requires detriment to the party
claiming to have been misled (see Nassau Trust Co., 56 NY2d at 184).";
New York Supreme Court, Kings County Docket No. 2009-04019
There is no estoppel with respect to the GPL since the GPL clearly
spells out the requirements for allowing covered code to be copied and
distributed. That an anti-GPL crank believes the permissions of
the GPL apply while the requirements do not simply confirms that
person as a crank, but does not impact the GPL at all.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
