Re: Changing a license of a unmaintained software
Scott James Remnant <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > 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.
This contradicts what I have been told. In any case, surely it is well
known that it is possible to make a contract without any form of
writing, and any relevant circumstance may be used as evidence that a
contract was made, unless specifically excluded by rules such as
> > 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.
That's bullshit, I think. But let's not bother discussing it any
> > 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.
I disagree strongly, but let's not waste time on it any more.