The author of the [Code2000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code2000) font [stated](https://web.archive.org/web/20101122142710/http://code2000.net/code2000_page.htm):



> 
> Users are required to register the font after a “reasonable”
> evaluation period if they like the font and continue to use it.
> However, determining what is “reasonable” is left for the user to
> decide. The Code2000 download doesn’t degrade or expire and there are
> no annoying pop-up screens. This has been left open-ended
> intentionally. In some cases, members of minority script user
> communites — those who need a font like Code2000 the most — can least
> afford it. Clearly, if registering the font means your family doesn’t
> get enough food on the table, even for one meal, then it is not
> reasonable to register the font.
> 
> 
> But, if you can afford the small fee, and you like the font and
> continue to use it after a reasonable evaluation period, then register
> your shareware! After all, I need food on my plate, too.
> 
> 
> 


Now, since the author has disappeared (the PayPal account specified for payments is part of a domain registration that expired and was later repurposed), one could argue that,


* no amount of time is “reasonable”,
* tracking down the copyright holder would entail enormous costs (having to contact [hundreds of people](https://www.whitepages.com/name/James-Kass?fs=1&q=James+Kass)), so that that one's “family doesn’t get enough food on the table”,
* one cannot “afford the small fee” (though it is only USD 5.00),


but could these be enough grounds for continuous free usage without risk?



Can one rely on copyright holder's vague language?