Hi Chris and others, I'll start with Chris' most interesting question:
>If you wanted to help others, why did you "license" it under such a >restrictive license? If someone used the GPLv2 to license any of my work >because I hadn't specified a license, I would be pretty annoyed, because >the GPL is awful. I choose to use GPLv2 because that's exactly the same license that mutt uses. From the wide range of choices, that seemed to me to be the most fairest. Then Chris also mentioned the consequences of copyright a bit (on which, contrary to what he seems to think, not something we disagree about): >Copyright doesn't even expire on death in most countries. I'd consider >"uncontactable" to be less egregious than dead. I am aware of that. To quote myself: my comments were "not to justify my behaviour, just an explanation." I am aware of the fact that the Berner Convention has this clause that copyright expires 70 years (or technically, between 70 and 71 years) after the death of the author. And I am aware that there's a lively debate on this, as not being able to determine the owner or not being able to contact owner is considered to be a problem: "orphaned works". >Credit does not mitigate copyright violation. Like I said: I am aware of that. I will not repeat quoting myself. -- Rejo Zenger . <r...@zenger.nl> . 0x21DBEFD4 . <https://rejo.zenger.nl> GPG encrypted e-mail preferred . +31.6.39642738 . @rejozenger
pgp5u6waLYwqt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
