Just like many others, IANAL, but ...
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) -- if he refered to those URLs at least (in
all distributions) and/or included text versions (is it really that hard?),
people would know what they're getting.
> I see no theories of his there. 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.
> 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. In fact, the
only thing that's very clear from his documents on Copyright is that he either
doesn't like licenses, or he is afraid to use one because it won't hold up in
court and he'll lose the control he likes having.
Both those reasons are valid to me, btw.
--
Michael T. Babcock, C.T.O. FibreSpeed
http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock
