Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
In message <[🔎] email@example.com>, Ben Finney
"Anthony W. Youngman" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Basically he should put there "(c) Hubert" and "licence GPLv3+".
Small nit (and all in my layman's understanding): Copyright notices,
when they were required at all (most recently in the UCC), were never
valid with “(c) Person Name”. That is, “(c)” doesn't mean “copyright”:
Only “Copyright”, the abbreviation “Copr.”, or the copyright symbol
“©” are any use as a way of legally indicating a copyright notice.
I was really meaning that the author SHOULD claim copyright...
"legally-meaningful" or not, if there's no claim of copyright by the
owner, then it's a bugger if you want to use your Free Software rights -
it makes it hard for you to exercise them because you can't be sure what
These days the UCC is essentially obsoleted by the Berne convention
and copyright obtains with or without a valid notice; but if we
request such notices, we should at least make them legally-meaningful.
\ “One of the most important things you learn from the internet |
`\ is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It's just an awful lot of |
—Douglas Adams |
Anthony W. Youngman - email@example.com