"Pavel Kankovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But there are ABSOLUTELY no references to dist.html or softwarelaw.html in
> the source tarballs.
So what?
> Moreover, softwarelaw.html is about using the software ``once you've
> legally downloaded [it]'', dist.html is about (re)distribution of qmail
> (again, once you've...). The mere fact something is published on the
> Internet does not make downloading it legal (DJB's theories in
> http://cr.yp.to/rights.html notwithstanding),
I see no theories of his there. The only part there he attributes to
himself is:
: 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.
paul
