Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > Unfortunately your "fallback" provision, that a failed contract
> >  cannot supply grounds for claims of promissory estoppel, is a 
> > figment of Richard Stallman's fertile imagination...
>
> How do you get promissory estoppel without a promise?

Ummm. . . do you *really* believe that:

"2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above . . ." doesn't offer a promise of copyright permissions?

Hmmm. . .

Sincerely,
Rjack :)