Re: more files with licenses that aren't GPL-compatible

[Adam J. Richter]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:22:42PM -0400, mdpoole@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/equitable_estoppel.html discusses equitable
> estoppel vis-a-vis patent rights (which are treated similarly to
> copyrights by many courts).  When you contributed your changes to the
> USB maintainers, they -- and later redistributors -- inferred that you
> would not allege copyright infringement by applying your changes to
> the kernel that existed then.

	From my reading of that web page, it does not seem to me
that one would have a case of either equitable estoppel or implied
license (for example, "silence alone is generally not sufficient
affirmative conduct to give rise to estoppel").  I've made my
opposition to the illegal drivers clear from the time that I've
been aware of them.

	If you are not fabricating claims about inferences
by "the USB maintainers [...] and later distributors", I would
be interested in your citing some historical examples of the
"USB mainatiners" stating this inference and not being corrected.

	Also, I apologize in advance if I'm unable to justify
prioritizing time to respond to you further.  It does not mean
that I necessarily agree with anything you've said.

-- 
                    __     ______________
Adam J. Richter        \ /
adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx      | g g d r a s i l
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/