Some companies don't want to have to make that argument :)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Lindberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 3:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Kurt's Closet on qmail
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 16:01:38 +0100, Petr Novotny wrote:
>
> >That's about something different: That's about some lame theory
> >which says that if you're requesting a document by http, you're
> >making a copy and you need authorization. I fail to see
> >daemontools-something.tar.gz as a document.
>
> Of course it's a document.
>
> >Anyway, for anal-retentive types, a promise "I won't sue you" put
> >somewhere on the web by someone claiming to be djb doesn't cut
> >it.
> >And yes, I'm being anal retentive now.
>
> Would you be happy if someone claiming to be DJB had put up a
> daemontools package on the same site and in it given you the
> same info,
> or said that it's GPL? Would you require a PGP signature? Would a PGP
> signature have any legal value?
>
> DJB should decide to sue me for using daemontools (p<epsilon), I think
> that I could make a very reasonable argument: Why would he put it
> there, document and advertize it, if he didn't want people to use it?
>
>
> -Sincerely, Fred
>
> (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
>
>
>
