Paul Jarc wrote:
> > 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.
The question is what the author permits the user to do -- this is what a license
is about. Since the author gives no implicit license, we all come down to IANAL
legal battles over what is implied by his other writings. A license would clear
(most of) this up -- that's the issue.
> > 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?
Many times unfortunately.
> 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".
He re-iterates specific thoughts in the form of hearsay. The overall picture of
the file is his theory on implied rights of the user of software. Since he does
not quote case law (which would be valid in the USA or Canada at least) or other
legal documents, the majority of that file constitues DJB's theories.
> Are you saying that
> these are simply false statements, and that no one actually holds the
> views that Dan says some do?
That's not necessary for what I said originally, and you know it -- so its not
worth a flame-war, is it?
> 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."
Like I said -- where's the disclaimer from his employer if he's ever used
university time to write that software?
> 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.
In fact, there's no guarantee that any document would form a legally binding
contract as contracts must be accepted by both parties in many (most?) countries
and "click" style licensing has proven not binding in some countries. This is a
point the GPL (just an example) makes by reminding the user that they can either
accept the license as given, or ignore it, but if they choose to ignore it, they
get no rights whatsoever to modification or redistribution.
> There's also no statement that he wrote any of his software on the
> University's time.
More appropriately, there's no statement that he didn't.
> 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?
Because then I could show my good faith that the statement was true, which makes a
legal case in my favor -- depending on an assumption considering the lack of such
a statement is strange.
> If I really cared, I'd
> want a signed document from the University. Otherwise, the present
> situation is as good as any other.
The present situation is clearly not as good as a well-written license and
disclaimer.
--
Michael T. Babcock, C.T.O. FibreSpeed
http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock
