Alessandro Baretta wrote:


>> Any computer user must have read and understood the licence (or, less
>> bad than nothing, a digest) of the software it uses. This is pointless
>> to care of the ones that do not. Even if they come from the whole
>> majority, faults must not be agreed but fighted against.
> 
> 
> Besides, whether one reads it or not, one is bound by it.


I think you have it completely backwards.

There is no licence 'agreement'. I am not bound by
it, I have agreed to nothing.

It is completely the other way around.

Copyright may be applied to my use of software.

A 'licence' is a unilateral RELEASE from the
restrictions otherwise imposed by
copyright. And it is on my head to ensure that the
release is valid and authoritative (provably emnating
from the copyright holder) in case I am sued for
breach of copyright.

--
John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@ozemail.com.au
snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.
voice:61-2-9660-0850


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners