> > Electronic Communications Act 2000 ... > > shall each be admissible in evidence in relation to any question as to > > the authenticity of the communication or data or as to the integrity of > > the communication or data.
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Richard Braakman wrote: > "admissible in evidence" is not very meaningful if that evidence > can immediately be shown to be useless. For example, by demonstrating > in court how to forge exactly that signature by downloading the > private key from a public archive and using it. SO WHAT? Ok, it may be an interesting theoretical discussion about deniability of electronic signatures, and whether they're different from just claiming that someone forged a paper signature. Please don't forget the original question: what minimal work must someone do to get an upstream to relicense a work. I don't have signed statement, digitally or on paper, from the vast majority of copyright holders for software I use. I don't need one, as long as I'm convinced that they actually did grant such a license and won't deny doing so in court. We don't require any notarized, PGP-signed, government-registered, or otherwise verified document from any copyright holder. It is sufficient that you get permission in some form that you're comfortable with, and include such permission in the package. An e-mail is fine, as long as it's unambiguous in wording and there is strong reason to believe it came from the actual copyright holder. Put a copy of the e-mail in the package and you're good to go. However, IANAL and IANADD, so you might want someone else to second this belief before proceeding too far with it. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
