Hyman Rosen wrote:
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.
Don't go to a real court Hyman. You'll find the court won't indulge your
denials anymore than the federal courts listened to the Birther's claims
of non-citizenship for Obama. ROFL.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
