"Michael T. Babcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul Jarc wrote:
> > "Pavel Kankovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > But there are ABSOLUTELY no references to dist.html or
> > > softwarelaw.html in the source tarballs.
> >
> > So what?
> 
> So when a lot of people download the files, they don't know what the
> licensing is and have to ask on the list(s)

True, but not relevant to the question of what is legal.

> > I see no theories of his [in rights.html].  The only part there he
> > attributes to himself is:
> 
> He wrote it all -- its all DJB's theories -- they may be right or wrong, but
> he's not a lawyer so its not even really worth trusting his theories at all.

Have you even read rights.html?  When talking about what might be the
correct interpretation of the law, it says "Some people think ..." and
"Other people ...".  It doesn't say "I think".  Are you saying that
these are simply false statements, and that no one actually holds the
views that Dan says some do?  Even if so, why does it matter?  He says
"I promise I won't sue you for copyright violation for downloading
documents from my server."  Would you be more satisfied with something
like "I hereby waive my right to sue ..."?  It still wouldn't be a
contract.  He could still go back and edit it.  You'd still need
others' copies to support your claim that you got it legally.

> > which makes it clear to me that downloading, e.g., qmail-1.03.tar.gz
> > won't get me in trouble.
> 
> No, because there's no statement about whether the University he
> works at thinks that they own the Copyright on software he may have
> worked on while being paid by them -- he doesn't include a waiver
> statement by them either.

There's also no statement that he wrote any of his software on the
University's time.  He could publish a statement (by himself, or by
University officials) that he in fact is the copyright holder, but why
would you trust such an explicit statement over the implicit one,
since that statement could be false anyway?  If I really cared, I'd
want a signed document from the University.  Otherwise, the present
situation is as good as any other.


paul

Reply via email to