Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright
firstname.lastname@example.org (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> And, despite what you've been arguing against,
> * Copyright (c) 2003 Sample Author
I have not been arguing against this. Adding extra stuff is fine,
provided it doesn't materially impede clarity, and this of course
doesn't impede clarity.
I'm arguing against a note that says:
* (C) 2003 Sample Author
> Yup. And despite your repeated rants about references, there's still
> nothing that says "and adding an extraneous symbol voids your copyright."
Of course, and I have said nothing of the kind. I have said that (c)
doesn't substitute for one of the officially statutorily approved
things. Adding extra stuff is pointless, but perfectly legal, and