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

Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation

In message <[🔎] 874owy8qth.fsf@benfinney.id.au>, Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> writes
"Anthony W. Youngman" <debian@thewolery.demon.co.uk> 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...

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.

"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 they are!
\       “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 |
_o__) ‘us’.” —Douglas Adams |
Ben Finney

Anthony W. Youngman - anthony@thewolery.demon.co.uk

Reply to: