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! http://www.inventati.org/frx ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpNLhcCwz3wD.pgp
Description: PGP signature