Re: DEP-5: Please clarify the meaning of "same licence and share copyright holders"
Russ Allbery <email@example.com> writes:
> If the original said "Copyright 1994 Foo Bar" and we instead said
> "Copyright 1992-1996 Foo Bar", is that reproducing the copyright
> notice? Personally, and not being a lawyer, I'd say the answer is
> obviously yes. There is a copyright notice and it contains all of the
> information in the original copyright notice. It also contains some
> additional information, but I don't think that's particularly
> relevant. The meaning is fully preserved in that statement.
If the original said “Copyright 1994 Albert Q. Foobar”, and we said
instead “Copyright 1994 Every person born in Bogonia” (where we know
Albert was born in Bogonia), is that reproducing the copyright notice?
I would say the answer, in both your example and mine, is clearly “no”,
since the original information is partially lost. It was originally more
precise, and in making a more vague claim that information has been
> I'm happy to defer to the opinion of a copyright lawyer, however.
Likewise. Who has taken on the task of asking a qualified expert to
answer these questions? How is it progressing?
\ “I used to be a proofreader for a skywriting company.” —Steven |
`\ Wright |