[License-discuss] License Stewards

[Ben Reser]

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
> I think you mean it's not likely to be in front of a judge if the license
> steward *means* that.  If the license steward *says* it, but doesn't
> really mean it (or changes his/her mind), (s)he may try suing anyway.

I meant what I said.  I don't imagine there are very many license
stewards running around saying things they don't mean.

As I've already pointed out I've allowed room for the possibility of
things going awry in what I said already.

But as it stands, let's assume it does get before a court.  I'm pretty
sure before the court would even end up bothering looking at the
copyright issue it'd have to deal with the promissory estoppel.

So why are we wasting our time talking about something that would have
to have the following unlikely occurrences happen to matter:

1) License steward says something they didn't mean.
2) Despite what they said license steward decides to go to court.
3) License steward finds a lawyer that actually will take this to
court despite what they said.
4) Court decides that what they said wasn't a promissory estoppel.
5) Now we can talk about if the copyright license is copyrighted.

That's not to say that it'll never happen or can't happen.  Just that
I don't see the point in discussing it.  The circumstances without any
sort of statement about the copyright status from a license steward
gets to the core of what is being discussed on this thread and doesn't
end up wasting our time discussing this.

Ironically my attempt to point this out seems to have driven us
further down the wasted path of discussing this.