Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well

[RJack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > > Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> > >
> > > > RJack wrote: [...]
> > > > > b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory
> > > > > estoppel applies.
> > > > That's Versa's tenth defense.
> > > >
> > > > "TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (ESTOPPEL)
> > > >
> > > > On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’
> > > > claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel."
> > > Yeah, that one is hilarious as well.  "Dear court, how could we
> > > assume that we had license conditions to heed when making use of
> > > a license? They promised we could use their software under GPL,
> > > that certainly must be enough to stop them from asking us to heed
> > > it."
> > "Asking us to heed it" is a contract claim, not copyright
> > infringement claim you silly.
> >
> > By filing copyright infringement claim the licensor materially
> > breaches his obligation/consideration (i.e. obligation not to sue
> > for infringment) in a license agreement.
>
> A licensor has an obligation not to sue for infringement when the 
> license terms are breached?

Breached? BREACHED? As in "breach of contract" as contrasted with
"copyright infringement"?

Sincerely,
RJack :)