Re: [tlug] Apple owns CUPS

[Karen Pauley <karen-linux@example.com>]

On Mon Aug  6 01:06:43 2007, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Marty Pauley writes:
> 
>  > That is a type of estoppel in British law.  We can't find any
>  > precedent for this type of estoppel being used with software licences.
>  > It could work, but the court could also tell you that you were stupid
>  > for relying on it.
> 
> That's pretty much what Larry Rosen says in his book, except that he
> seems pretty confident that it would stand up in the case of free
> software.

I haven't read his book.  But that sounds interesting - and I was about
to start writing about why I think there would be problems with somethig
like distribution if you were trying to rely on promissory estoppel
(given that it's an equitable principle) but realise that this sort of
legal argument might not be the right thing for this list :)
 
> But is there any other way for a licensee to prevent revocation of a
> bare license in British law?  Larry implies there is not, in the U.S.

Nothing springs to mind at the moment - though maybe I'll think of
something when I'm more awake.

If it truly is a bare licence (i.e not contractual or not coupled with a
proprietary interest) and there is no term in the licence stating that
the licence is irrevocable then I believe that, under British law, it
can always be revoked.

This conversation reminded me that there is an amusing case that shows
that a revocation must be clear and that coarse abuse doesn't count. One
night Mr Gilham was spotted driving without lights by two police
officers.  They followed him to his home and stopped outside his house.
Mr Gilham walked up his path and the officers followed him informing him
that his lights weren't lit and asking if they could take a breath test.
He response was to say "fuck off you planks".  The courts ruled that
this phrase did not terminate the officer's licence to be on Mr Gilham's
property.

(Gilham v. Breidenbach [1982] RTR 328).  

-- 
Karen