Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
"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.
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 |
_o__) ‘us’.” —Douglas Adams |
Ben Finney
Reply to: