Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:15:39PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:38:33 -0400 Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> > Except that the original files don't have any notice. For those that
> > did, the notice has been kept.
> In that case, I personally think the safest strategy is including such
> notice, even though it was not present in the first place.
This is "getting extreme". If the original author didn't bother asserting
their copyright, why would one have to do it in the modified version?
Consider the situation in which you send a patch for some program, but
don't add your name in the copyright header. Does this mean every
redistributor of the program will have to track you down and add the
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."