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 dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
Reply to: