Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

bts@alum.mit.edu (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
harmless.

Thomas