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

[David Kastrup]

c.c.eiftj@XReXXArtif.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:

> Rjack writes:
>
>>Aren't you a being a little presumptuous when you simply ignore the
>>doctrine of promissory estoppel when considering a failed license?
>
> What's the promise here?

He thought he could get away with ignoring the license.  Of course, only
a lunatic would claim that this delusion was a "promise" planned for by
the licensor.  But it is less expensive to make a fool of oneself and
get laughed at in Usenet than in court.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum