@ 13/05/2004 14:11 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 01:01:55PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:This did not make sense to me.I was referring to this statement by Joe Moore: The GPL requires that the notices be kept intact. Not that they be a complete explanation of all copyright holders, nor a complete description of the licensing terms. I suppose there's some question here -- what does "a complete description" mean? My point was that all license terms must be stated explicitly.
No, in this you are wrong. Copyright notice is this: (C) Humberto Massa 2004 Just this and nothing else.Not a license statement, nothing like that. Just the copyright symbol, the name of the copyright holder, and the year (so people know when your copyright will expire). In the movies, they generally show it as the last thing of the credits, with the year in roman numerals. In books, it's generally in the first (paper) page or in the last one.
(C) Humberto Massa Movies MMIV.This is the *legal* definition of "Copyright notice", according to the Geneva Convention.
You said that putting copyright notices could be against some license terms. Or copyright by itself. It's not. Some free-or-semi-free license that permits you to modify the work (GPL certainly) permits you to put your copyright notices in the files you modified.However, if "a complete description of the licensing terms" means something other than "all license terms must be stated explicitly" then I don't see what contrast he is trying to draw.
-- br,M