Re: Changing a license of a unmaintained software
Scott James Remnant <email@example.com>:
> > > A signature made with a secret key that was published on Usenet can
> > > hardly be a valid proof of anything.
> > In some countries like in France it's truly accepted in court like a
> > valid proof, you just have to follow some rules. I don't think the
> > France is an exception in this matter.
> This is true in the UK as well.
What is true?
As far as know, almost anything is acceptable in a UK court as valid
proof, apart from a few stupid exceptions, such as "hearsay". It's
obvious, however, that a signature made with a key that was accidently
or deliberately published cannot in itself be evidence of anything
It has been argued that the term "signature" for what GPG does was
badly chosed. It is more like a "seal".