If copyright statute says that all rights not explicitly granted are reserved to the copyright holder, doesn't that mean the user ought to have gone looking for a license to make sure they had the right to use it? If the premise is that you are not aware, then the assumption should be that you have no rights at all in the software.
Trouble is that in some jurisdictions, the usage is not a right that can be restricted. It makes sense: If I receive a book, I can read it. If I receive software, I can use it. So that's why, in those countries, you can't assume the recipient read your license just because they exercised their right to use it. This is part of the reason why, for example, the GPL's teeth are attached to things like modification and distribution. For most people (except lawyers) this is not a problem - after all, what harm can an isolated end user do? Regards, Bruce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
