|
|
|
|
|
|
by pushcx
1480 days ago
|
|
|
It's not even that the evidence isn't good enough, or that the archive appears inauthentic, it's that the evidence you've supplied doesn't even attempt to support your claim. Nothing in the archive you linked implies the whitepaper is under MIT. (And: if you think this archive may be inauthentic, perhaps you should've chosen another for your evidence.) |
|
|
Here's a January 6, 2009 snapshot from the Way Back Machine. This was before he publicly released the code. The entire project is MIT licensed and only contained one file: the whitepaper. https://web.archive.org/web/20090106201347/http://sourceforg...
I should have linked to that.
> if you think this archive may be inauthentic
I don't think it's inauthentic. I'm saying Amazon could think it's inauthentic, and not tell me.