[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:37:04 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081105)

Rjack wrote:
Aren't you a being a little presumptuous when you simply ignore the
doctrine of promissory estoppel when considering a failed license?

Of course not. The GPL clearly spells out its requirements. No one
can claim to have been promised anything other than what the license
itself states, so no one should be acting in expectation of anything
besides the words of the GPL.

There may be people like you who incorrectly believe that the limits
of the GPL can be ignored while its permissions can be taken, but those
people are reasoning externally. They can hardly claim that the GPL has
promised them things that it clearly states that it does not allow. Or
rather, they can claim that, but they'll be laughed out of court.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]