Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 09:05:04PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote:
> > : I don't know which of these theories will succeed in court. I also
> > : don't think you should have to care. So I promise I won't sue you
> > : for copyright violation for downloading documents from my server.
> >
> > which makes it clear to me that downloading, e.g., qmail-1.03.tar.gz
> > won't get me in trouble.
>
> Unless Dan decides at a later date to remove that page from his website. At
> that point, how will you prove that you obtained the software legitimately?
The same way as if rights.html were included in qmail-1.03.tar.gz: I'd
ask people who had copies to present them, to support my claim. There
would be more such copies if it were included in qmail-1.03.tar.gz,
but I'm not going to waste time worrying about it.
It's the same situation as with, say, Emacs. The GPL doesn't give you
permission to get a copy of Emacs; it only specifies what you can do
once you have. The nearest I could find to explicit permission to
download it is "By FTP we provide source code for all GNU software,
free of charge." at
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/software.html#HowToGetSoftware>, and
that covers only the GNU site itself, not mirrors. I think
rights.html is clearer.
paul
