Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> Are you able to claim that source code written is not under copyright in
> any way? It's less than 70 years after the author's death (even for
> really old code from, say, 1950) and if it clearly is copyrightable, it
> will be under copyright.
If it was written by a US g
* Anthony DeRobertis
| Well, isn't prohibiting the "I didn't know it is copyrighted" defence
| the only legal effect of having the notice nowadays, anyway?
Are you able to claim that source code written is not under copyright
in any way? It's less than 70 years after the author's death (even
fo
Hello Anthony,
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>This has to include a copyright year, also.
>>
>> ...and following additional discussion, the resolution is:
>>
>>After considering the suggestion, I have decided to close this
>>bug.
>>
> The yea
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 03:51:30PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Only for some pretty strange values of "worthless". AFAIU the only
>> legal effect of the notice requirements you cite is as defined by
>> subsection (d): if a compliant notice is
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 03:51:30PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Only for some pretty strange values of "worthless". AFAIU the only
> legal effect of the notice requirements you cite is as defined by
> subsection (d): if a compliant notice is present, a defendant is
> excluded from the defense t
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The year really should be included. At least in the US, not having a
> year in the notice appears to make the notice worthless. Quoting Title
> 17 USC Sec. 401(b):
Only for some pretty strange values of "worthless". AFAIU the only
legal effect of
Jeremy Stanley wrote:
This has to include a copyright year, also.
...and following additional discussion, the resolution is:
After considering the suggestion, I have decided to close this
bug.
The year really should be included. At least in the US, not having a
year in the notice a
Hi,
* Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-27 17:40]:
> Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10605 March 1977, Nico Golde wrote:
> >> * Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-26 20:31]:
> >>> A while ago Peter 'weasel' Palfrader wrote a nice little "How (not) to
> >>> write copy
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10605 March 1977, Nico Golde wrote:
>
>> * Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-26 20:31]:
>>> A while ago Peter 'weasel' Palfrader wrote a nice little "How (not) to
>>> write copyright files"[1]. Please read that *now*.
>>> [1] http://lists.debi
I just can't locate copyright statement anywhere within the package --
only license file (MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1)
is copyright assumed to belong to upstream author? what years then
should be mentioned?
--
.-.
=-- /v\
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 08:48:31PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> * Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-26 20:31]:
> > A while ago Peter 'weasel' Palfrader wrote a nice little "How (not) to
> > write copyright files"[1]. Please read that *now*.
> >
> > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-a
On 10605 March 1977, Nico Golde wrote:
> * Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-26 20:31]:
>> A while ago Peter 'weasel' Palfrader wrote a nice little "How (not) to
>> write copyright files"[1]. Please read that *now*.
>> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg7.htm
12 matches
Mail list logo
