Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes: > In the above example, doc/* are not copyright by Mr. Foo. But if if > Mr. Foo has done work that allows him to assert a compilation > copyright, that could apply to the whole package, including doc/*. So, > Mr. Foo could be listed in the Copyright in the header. Okay. I am not clear on how acts of compilation invoke copyright law, but that does seem to be a “package as a whole” case that would not be covered by copyright on the source files. Thanks. > In this case, there is not a license directly associated with the > compilation copyright. That doesn't make much sense. If someone can assert copyright on the compilation, surely we need explicit copyright license from that holder on the compilation? > All the individual files are licensed under A or B, by their > individual authors. So having License in the header doesn't make > sense. If it's relevant to record the copyright on a compilation, I don't see how we escape the need to also show what license we have to that compilation. -- \ “The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. | `\ The pessimist fears it is true.” —J. Robert Oppenheimer | _o__) | Ben Finney
Attachment:
pgpRcTRl0xkQj.pgp
Description: PGP signature