[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Changing a license of a unmaintained software

On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 18:56, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:

> Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.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".
Not true, the UK has a set of rules as to what constitutes sufficient
authority to be bound by the contents of a document.  The Electronic
Communications Act 2000 extended these to include digital signatures,
such as those created by PGP, if the signer so wished it to be
interpreted it that way.

> It's obvious, however, that a signature made with a key that was
> accidently or deliberately published cannot in itself be evidence
> of anything particularly interesting.
This would be treated the same as a claim that someone forged a
traditional pen signature, or copied your wax seal.

Posessing a digitally signed e-mail from the author would have (under UK
law) the same power as holding a written letter signed by the author.

For extra security, I'd the signed e-mail witnessed and signed by a
second party -- just as I'd get a written letter witness and signed by a
second party.

> It has been argued that the term "signature" for what GPG does was
> badly chosed. It is more like a "seal".
A signature and a seal are the same thing.

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: