|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
"Why would the court ignore a promise made publicly? They own the
copyright
and only them have standing to sue."
Hmmm, I seem to have responded to the main thread and not the sub-thread. Let's
see if this works.
All of the states in the US will recognize equitable estoppel, and would not
ignore the views of the owner of the copyright if they amount to misleading
conduct, particularly deliberately misleading conduct.
But no sane distributor would rely on such an estoppel. They would have to prove
that they had relied on the statements giving rise to the estoppel
believing them to be true in a way which would cause them loss if the person
making the statement were to renege, had done so reasonably, and met the other
requirements of equitable relief (clean hands and so forth). As a sub-issue, it
is by no means clear that only the copyright in grub would be relevant here,
because of the mix of software ownership involved in booting up a computer.
This article is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of the law. Estoppel is a
discretionary relief available in equity for those who have acted in good faith
on the basis of statements made by other of dubious good faith. They are not the
basis of a business strategy.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 05:31 PM EDT |
Why would the court ignore a promise made publicly? They own the
copyright and only them have standing to sue.
But FSF has said
that they do consider it a requirement to provide the key. They just say
it is the distributor, not Canonical, that must provide it. "the computer
distributor -- not Canonical or Ubuntu -- would be the one responsible for
providing the information necessary for users to run modified versions of the
software."
And, of course, the distributor won't have it so how helpful is
that? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
