21 Dec
2005
21 Dec
'05
10:50 a.m.
Gary Sparkes wrote:
He also later on said that people could redistribute it
if they had it, too.
Must have missed that one.
After the package was pulled (and request for destruction of same),
I'd still prefer a clearer license than: "search through the messages
in these newsgroups, and find all those that revise the copyright on
this package."
I'd rather not have something seak up behind me and bite off any
important bits because I missed one message. Copyright via
newsgroup doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. It's too easy to
mess with the messages in a newsgroup (forged posts, etc.).
Legally, the rights should be whatever is described in the supplied
package, but I'd still like to honor the authors current intent.
With both copyrights and patents being applied to software
nowadays, and all the fun we've had with the Linux vs.
SCO, the GIF patent, etc., I'd prefer to have a clear license
to avoid future problems. Lawyers are *not* fun to deal with.