Please don't top-post.
Andy Jackman <ajackman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > More importantly, I understand that if he fails to take action against
> > > people to appear to have violated his licence (like plisk) then he is in
> > > fact showing that their actions are not illegal and are in fact a valid
> > > interpretation of the licence.
> >
> > That is not a valid assumption; copyright is not abandoned in this way as
> > trademarks are.
> I did not mean djb could abandon his copyright. I meant that his actions
> or inactions define his licence,
That's not correct.
> which is in essence a contract between the parties.
That's not correct either.
The total rights you have to djb's software are:
1) Rights granted to you by copyright law
2) Rights granted to you explicitly by djb
Nothing else djb does or fails to do matters; the "license" is not defined by
his actions or inaction.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <qmaildist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
