On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 06:24:25AM +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 05:01:07PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 12:45:27AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > > > even > > > > when portions are copyright other people/entities. > > > > > If there is a hint to distrust what people claim about their work, > > > I see no way how a judge could believe a "But I was told it is" if one > > > did not at least check what hints one got. > > > > > If someone claims he has a license from Adobe, then well, believe him > > > unless you run into some statement from Adobe that they do not give > > > away any licenses like that. If someone just claims it is under a free > > > license but does not even refer to those parts having a different > > > copyright, > > > then it gets unlikely enough in my eyes that one has to assume the default > > > of the law: no permission at all. > > > > This notion of documenting the copyright of every single line of every > > single file is a new development in Debian - and not a healthy one. > > Every copyright notice means that there is at least a part copyrighted by the > mentioned copyright holder.
Every? Like this one, that can be found in /bin/true on some systems? -------8<------ # Copyright (c) 1984 AT&T # All Rights Reserved # THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T # The copyright notice above does not evidence any # actual or intended publication of such source code. #ident "@(#)cmd/true.sh 50.1" -------8<------ (and the file had *no* other content) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120801064000.ga12...@glandium.org
