Rjack wrote:
promissory estoppel
There is nothing in the GPL which would lead anyone to believe
that they may copy and distribute GPLed code other than by doing
as the GPL requires, and thus there is no promissory estoppel.
The GPL does not create "a new kind of copyright" and thus the
preemption clause is of no relevance.
The provisions of the GPL are not illegal, and thus must be
honored in order to copy and distribute.
> Where is the citation to legal authority that you claim makes my
> assertions "incorrect"?
The GPL is universally treated as if it works exactly the way it
says it does. Every enforcement action has resulted in compliance
with the GPL. That is all the proof I require. And in both the CAFC
model railroad decision and the MySQL/NuSphere case, judges reacted
in much the same way.