[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DEP-5: Please clarify the meaning of "same licence and share copyright holders"



Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> 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?

No, because copyright can't be held by every person born in Bogonia and
that doesn't meet the requirements (in the US at least; I don't know
Australian law) for a valid copyright notice that clearly identifies the
holder.  However, if you said:

    Copyright 1994 Albert Q. Foobar and Joe Blow

then yes, I think you've reproduced the copyright notice just fine.
Likewise if you reversed the names.  Of course, if Joe Blow has nothing
to do with the software, you may have other problems, but I don't think
they're license problems.

> 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 lost.

Okay.  We both think the other is obviously wrong, so there we go.  :)

> Likewise. Who has taken on the task of asking a qualified expert to
> answer these questions? How is it progressing?

It's certainly not me.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


Reply to: