From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,aae53a1e1005187e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Vincent Marciante Subject: Re: Ada 83 Booch components Date: 2000/03/23 Message-ID: <38DAE120.5D05@li.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 601596825 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <953594844.1480.0.nnrp-11.9e9848fa@news.demon.co.uk> <38D6CB9D.6342@li.net> <38D7CB35.476AE4FA@res.raytheon.com> <8b959t$9um$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8bavjr$aik1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <8bbq4b$7uh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 953868564 209.139.0.128 (Fri, 24 Mar 2000 03:29:24 GMT) Organization: Verio MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 03:29:24 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-03-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > Well here you have to be careful. If the copyright holder > publishes a general license, then that's fine, but what I > was warning of here is that it is not good enough to read > on CLA a message from A saying that B has said it is OK! Well, just for the record, noone who responded stating that they do have access to the components has emailed me a copy. I wonder if this warning was the cause or may it was simply obvious that that would be a completely wrong thing to do. ;) > > > If you meet Joe in the street, and he tells you, sure, go ahead > and copy X (in which he holds a copyright interest), and there > is no evidence of any kind of this interchange, and no apparent > reason for Joe to have given this permission, Joe would likely > prevail in a subsequent course of copyright action (your defence > that you thought Joe had given you permission might be a > reasonable explanation, but I doubt any court would find it > a valid license given the standards of proof involved here. Which are you implying here? Is it that 1) Joe might be deceitful (I doubt it;) or that 2) you must verify that Joe is really Joe or 3) something else.