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

Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 04:07:47 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:

> "Robert Millan" <rmh@aybabtu.com> wrote in message 
> news:20090410200117.GB30050@thorin...
> > 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?
> >
> Fully agreed that adding a full copyright statement for the past 
> contributers seems excessive. What would not be excessive is a note along 
> with the new copyright statement that others hold copyrights to parts of the 
> file, but chose not to add a full notice at that time. 

Other opinions?

Is adding something like

# Copyright (C) ????-2007  others (who chose not to add a full notice)
# Copyright (C) 2008-2009  Francesco Poli
#  This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
[permission notice follows]

really considered sufficient, when modifying a file that originally had
no specific copyright/permission notice (but belonged to a package with
a general permission notice, so that I am reasonably sure about the
original license of the file)?

 New location for my website! Update your bookmarks!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpNLhcCwz3wD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: