Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

[RJack]

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 :)