Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 08:18:29PM +1300, Chris K. Young wrote:
> > I say that dist.html should be considered authoritative. There are
> > references in the qmail and djbdns documentation that contain the
> > URL to their respective pages.
>
> That's what you say. But there isn't a definitive license (i.e. LICENSE or
> COPYING) in the qmail distribution that explains those rights
There's nothing magical about those names. The names "dist.html" and
"softwarelaw.html" are just as good, and I don't see why they should
have to be included in the distribution.
> some web page could be altered or taken down at any time, leaving
> users without any rights whatsoever.
IANAL (are you?), but I doubt that a copyright holder can revoke
permission already granted in this way. The *record* (or rather,
*one* record) of permission could be removed, but how does that affect
the permission itself?
paul
