I don't think there's a judge in the country that wouldn't let it slide if you present this piece of evidence:
"for historical reasons I have released full code to the once shareware version of Raster Master. This includes the additional
utilities included with registered version(screen clip and command line converter). Updated code to work properly in 256
color mode when in DosBox. also added Bin2Bsv."
Judges aren't law-applying machines. They understand nuance and intent.
Agreed, but the exact written word does matter. Technicalities have consequences, sometimes regardless of intent. You seem to be arguing that it was pointless to even give a license to the code, since it was somehow obvious what he meant? Well, the author has now added an MIT license to the code, so the point is moot.