|
No, you posted your own personal intepretation of the licence as if it were fact - an interpretation which explicitly contradicts the wishes of the copyright holders - and then encouraged people to follow your interpretation.
And the saddest part of all is that you somehow believe you were being "completely ethically neutral". I guess that says alot about your ethics.
Of course it is - if you disagree with their interpretation then you can contest it in court, and let the court decide the intent of the licence. The same is true of any licence.
Ownership of the licence is irrelevent - the important question is whether they own the copyright. And the answer is "yes" - their US Copyright No is TX 4-424-366, look it up.
If he reserved that right, of course he could.
But we're not talking about changing the terms of the licence - we're talking about applying different interpretations to those terms. Are you really as ignorant as to believe you're free to interpret the terms of his licence however you wish?
No, I insist that people follow the Diku team's interpretation of the Diku team's licence, at least until such point as that intepretation is deemed legally invalid by a court of law.
Utter rubbish. You're the one encouraging people to violate the intent of the Diku licence, not me.
|