[linux-elitists] Copyright, loss of enforcement rights (was: MP3 patents)

Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com
Fri Sep 7 12:23:51 PDT 2001

on Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 12:18:54PM -0700, Seth David Schoen (schoen@loyalty.org) wrote:
> Karsten M. Self writes:
> > #include ianal.h
> karsten.c:1: `#include' expects "FILENAME" or <FILENAME>

I parse, but I don't compile.

> > No.
> > 
> > Neither copyright nor patent rights are weakened for *future* actions by
> > non-enforcement, barring a few boundary cases involving estoppal and
> > laches [1].
> That's "estoppel".
> I once tried to have a law student explain the doctrine of estoppel to
> me.  It's a difficult one, with a lot of strange corners; it's not
> particularly easy to relate to everyday experience.

I've got the definitions provided by Black's and the Debian dict
package, as well as several lawyerly attempts at clarification, and I
still can't quite say what it's all about.  I think my statements above
(spelling aside) are close to the mark.

Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>          http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?             There is no K5 cabal
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/               http://www.kuro5hin.org
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA!    http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire                        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20010907/a295eed0/attachment.pgp 

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list