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

[Rjack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >
> > > Now, a complaint may say anything at all. Artifex's statement is
> > > not how licensing under the GPL is properly understood, but there
> > > is nothing that can be done to prevent them from saying whatever
> > > they want.
> > Quite true.
> >
> > Now the rubber meets the road for Artifex. The burden is on Artifex to
> > demonstrate the validity of the GPL and that its scope has been
> > violated by Diebold.
>
> No, the burden is not on Artifex to demonstrate the validity of the GPL.
> If there is no valid license, Diebold is in violation of copyright
> anyway.  Diebold has to state whether they consider having complied with
> the license terms or not.

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


"The American Law Institute in 1932 included the principle of 
estoppel into § 90 of the Restatement of Contracts, stating:

    A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce 
action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the 
part of the promisee and which does induce such action or 
forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by 
enforcement of the promise.
    —Restatement (Second) removed the requirement that the 
detriment be "substantial".

The distinction between promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel 
should be noted:

    Equitable estoppel is distinct from promissory estoppel. 
Promissory estoppel involves a clear and definite promise, while 
equitable estoppel involves only representations and inducements. 
The representations at issue in promissory estoppel go to future 
intent, while equitable estoppel involves statement of past or 
present fact. It is also said that equitable estoppel lies in tort, 
while promissory estoppel lies in contract. The major distinction 
between equitable estoppel and promissory estoppel is that the 
former is available only as a defense, while promissory estoppel can 
be used as the basis of a cause of action for damages.
    —28 Am Jur 2d Estoppel and Waiver § 35"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel