easier answer for changing a license of a unmaintained software
> > Electronic Communications Act 2000
> > shall each be admissible in evidence in relation to any question as to
> > the authenticity of the communication or data or as to the integrity of
> > the communication or data.
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
> "admissible in evidence" is not very meaningful if that evidence
> can immediately be shown to be useless. For example, by demonstrating
> in court how to forge exactly that signature by downloading the
> private key from a public archive and using it.
SO WHAT? Ok, it may be an interesting theoretical discussion about
deniability of electronic signatures, and whether they're different from
just claiming that someone forged a paper signature. Please don't forget
the original question: what minimal work must someone do to get an
upstream to relicense a work.
I don't have signed statement, digitally or on paper, from the vast
majority of copyright holders for software I use. I don't need one, as
long as I'm convinced that they actually did grant such a license and
won't deny doing so in court.
We don't require any notarized, PGP-signed, government-registered, or
otherwise verified document from any copyright holder. It is sufficient
that you get permission in some form that you're comfortable with, and
include such permission in the package.
An e-mail is fine, as long as it's unambiguous in wording and there is
strong reason to believe it came from the actual copyright holder. Put a
copy of the e-mail in the package and you're good to go.
However, IANAL and IANADD, so you might want someone else to second this
belief before proceeding too far with it.
Mark Rafn firstname.lastname@example.org <http://www.dagon.net/>