Here is what
Peter Gutmann (!!) initially said about the case:
Quote:
TrueCrypt Team <tmp0402c@truecrypt.org> writes:
>2) Writing an illegal license that permits anyone to base his/her
>own work on E4M and distribute such modified work (while, according
>to W. Hefner, P. Le Roux did not have any right to do so).
>3) Distributing E4M illegally (according to W. Hefner, all versions
>of E4M always belonged only to SecurStar)
Disclaimer: IANAL, and it's been a long time since I talked to one about this
sort of thing, so count this as just an opinion:
This would depend on the terms of the license that Paul signed with SecurStar.
From discussions over this many years ago, it's not possible to unilaterally
retroactively change a license in this manner (this is why you'll occasionally
find open-source apps based on formerly freely-available work that's gone
commercial building on really old code that was distributed under a more
liberal license). If the license that Paul signed with SecurStar explicitly
says that it supersedes all previous ones then it'd be more tricky and you'd
need to get a lawyer to look at it. I assume it's also going to be governed
by European law, which may rule out getting a US lawyer to comment on it (for
example Europe has a stronger concept of moral rights than the US, which may
help in this case since it affects an artist's ability to control future use
of their work).
You could always submit it to slashdot and get the peanut gallery's opinion
:-).
Peter.
|