Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 4/9/2010 2:54 PM, RJack wrote:
> > You can't accept illegal terms... the law refuses to enforce them.
>
> Fortunately the terms of the GPL are legal.
>
> > Oh beautiful estoppel! Wondrous are your ways! You maketh my code 
> > public domain! Oh fair estoppel!
>
> 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.

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

Sincerely,
RJack :)