|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 04:58 PM EDT |
This is an oversimplification. See my response on equitable estoppel (which is
what you are talking about).
Bear in mind also that (a) equitable estoppel is a matter of US law (and other
common law jurisdictions) but canonical distribution throughout the world, and
(b) presumably canonical have received legal advice differing from the FSF's, so
that equitable estoppel would not apply, since they would not believe what the
FSF to be true. In addition, it is undecided how far estoppel can apply to
matters of law rather than fact, and differs between different common law
jurisdictions.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
"it would *have* to be ruled *against* the FSF if there was reasonable
doubt"
"if you wrote the terms, then the other guy gets the benefit of the
doubt"
So Canonical says that GPLv3 does not allow them to do certain things with GRUB.
Then what, in our hypothetical court case, Canonical does it anyway?
FSF sues them (for what?) and says "No, GPLv3 says you are allowed to do
what we are suing you for doing"
The Court is forced to decide that GPLv3 does not allow Canonical to do what
they are doing because they are not allowed to just accept the interpretation of
the people who wrote GPLv3 if Canonical's interpretation can be considered at
least reasonable. Therefore FSF wins the suit and Canonical is forced to do
things the way FSF has written this paper criticizing them about.
I guess that makes sense :)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 07:35 PM EDT |
Perhaps you can explain why Psystar lost if their interpretation of the
license was given the benefit of doubt.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
