On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:59:13PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
Please don't forget
the original question: what minimal work must someone do to get an
upstream to relicense a work.
Yes, and the original answer: get a digitally signed email and don't
show it to anyone. We're now discussing why that
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:59:13PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
Please don't forget
the original question: what minimal work must someone do to get an
upstream to relicense a work.
Yes, and the original answer: get a digitally signed email and
Hello,
Let's assume that there is a 10 year old software wich is available in
source form on various places on the internet but it has no maintainer and
no home on the internet and the software has a nonfree license. Let's assume
I found the original author and convinced him in changing the
Klaus Reimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Hello,
Let's assume that there is a 10 year old software wich is available in
source form on various places on the internet but it has no maintainer and
no home on the internet and the software has a nonfree license. Let's assume
I found the
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But to avoid any delicate issue in the future, if I were you, if would
ask him to confirm with a gpg signed email the license change (just an
email is something easy to fake).
Getting him to sign the e-mail with his own key won't help much in the
case of him
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But to avoid any delicate issue in the future, if I were you, if would
ask him to confirm with a gpg signed email the license change (just an
email is something easy to fake).
Getting him to sign the
On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 13:49, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In some countries, it's accepted as a valid proof of the origin of
the email.
A signature made with a secret key that was published on Usenet can
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 01:11:45PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
can fake the e-mail. A better solution is to do everything in public
so that there are lots of witnesses.
If not in public, at least with cc's to debian-legal. There are more
than enough witnesses here.
-drew
--
M. Drew
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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
On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 18:56, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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
On 2003-09-06, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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
Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 13:49, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapot?? :
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
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 08:54:37PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
Electronic Communications Act 2000
7. - (1) In any legal proceedings-
(a) an electronic signature incorporated into or logically
associated with a particular electronic communication or
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Electronic Communications Act 2000
7. - (1) In any legal proceedings-
(a) an electronic signature incorporated into or logically
associated with a particular electronic communication or
particular electronic data, and
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
