From: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM>
To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>
Cc: Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com>, Biagio Lucini <lucini@phys.ethz.ch>,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gomp@nongnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: OpenMP licensing problem: a solution
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:09:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041123170320.A27093@synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0411231944000.29669@dberlin.org>; from dberlin@dberlin.org on Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 07:47:43PM -0500
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Mike Stump wrote:
> > Also,
> > bear in mind, what the person says has no legal weight, if they person you
> > are talking to has no legal standing.
>
> It's never a good idea to make assumptions about what principles the law
> follows :).
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 07:47:43PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> In this case, what you've said isn't necessarily or even usually true.
> Take a gander at the law of agency, in particular the principle of
> "apparent authority" (and also the principles of various forms
> of estoppel). Of course, you'd end up in court in this case, which you'd
> want to avoid, but you don't get to hold yourself out and give legal
> answers on behalf of your employer without any consequences :).
"estoppel", as I understand it, means that the court won't find you guilty
if you rely on a promise that you had good reason to think was a valid
promise (for example, because someone claiming to speak for a company made
it to you). I have no idea, though, what "good reason" means in this
case. Red Hat recently put out a piece explaining that the estoppel
principle would keep a future evil Red Hat management from suing free
software developers for infringing on Red Hat's patents, because the
developers are relying on an official promise:
http://www.redhat.com/magazine/001nov04/features/patents/
http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
Still, estoppel is an Anglo/American concept, and might not be good
elsewhere.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-24 1:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-23 9:31 Biagio Lucini
2004-11-24 0:03 ` Mike Stump
2004-11-24 1:03 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-11-24 2:09 ` Joe Buck [this message]
2004-11-24 3:20 ` Mike Stump
2004-11-24 5:35 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-11-24 7:52 ` Joe Buck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041123170320.A27093@synopsys.com \
--to=joe.buck@synopsys.com \
--cc=dberlin@dberlin.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gomp@nongnu.org \
--cc=lucini@phys.ethz.ch \
--cc=mrs@apple.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).