On 17/11/10 16:18, René Kjellerup wrote: > > sent from my phone > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "René Kjellerup" <rk.katana.st...@gmail.com > <mailto:rk.katana.st...@gmail.com>> > Date: Nov 17, 2010 5:17 PM > Subject: Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] Use a generic unxgcc.mk > <http://unxgcc.mk> > To: "Caolán McNamara" <caol...@redhat.com <mailto:caol...@redhat.com>> > > Why the oracle copyright notice in the new file too? > Shouldn't they have a TDF notice instead ? >
The whole point of a copyright notice is to say who *OWNS* the copyright, and the date of that ownership. Just because TDF has forked OOo doesn't mean we now legally own it. > > Just asking > Doing as you suggest (removing the Oracle notice) is actually *illegal*!!! (unless we remove all the Oracle-owned code at the same time :-) If you don't know what you're doing, you should NEVER alter a copyright notice - just add a new one claiming your own copyright on the code you yourself wrote and added. Whoops - just noticed what you said about "new" file. If it truly is new, then no it shouldn't have an Oracle notice. However, I get the impression that it's actually just a rename, so no, legally it isn't new. > > Regards > René > > Cheers, Wol
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
