Paul Jarc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 15 November 2000 at 11:07:43 -0500
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 08:18:29PM +1300, Chris K. Young wrote:
> > > I say that dist.html should be considered authoritative. There are
> > > references in the qmail and djbdns documentation that contain the
> > > URL to their respective pages.
> >
> > That's what you say. But there isn't a definitive license (i.e. LICENSE or
> > COPYING) in the qmail distribution that explains those rights
>
> There's nothing magical about those names. The names "dist.html" and
> "softwarelaw.html" are just as good, and I don't see why they should
> have to be included in the distribution.
In terms of convincing a corporate lawyer that it's okay to install
software on a corporate system, a specific license distributed with
the software specifically granting various permissions would be
extremely useful.
Dan is probably right that no special permissions are needed to make
normal uses of his code (which is what he says on his web pages), but
if the corporate lawyer isn't in agreement with him, he's going to say
"no". That's a corporate lawyer's job, after all.
> > some web page could be altered or taken down at any time, leaving
> > users without any rights whatsoever.
>
> IANAL (are you?), but I doubt that a copyright holder can revoke
> permission already granted in this way. The *record* (or rather,
> *one* record) of permission could be removed, but how does that affect
> the permission itself?
Demonstrating that the permission was granted gets harder if the pages
are taken down.
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
