On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 20:56, [email protected] said: > But copyright*able* does not mean that you must claim it, it just means > you _could_. And attribution is again separate, under the cURL license I
Nope, there is no need to claim copyright. It is a personal right which immediately takes effect. Regardless of whether there is a written Copyright line. This is due to the Berne convention and is thus also effective in the US. However, a written Copyright line seems to makes legal processings easier in the US. Recall now hard it was for IBM et al to disprove the claims of of SCO. it cost them a lot oif effort to treack down all changes. Common law (US/UK) allows to entirely sell your copyright; in European law you can't sell your copyright. But the final effect is basically the same. > don't see that you'd even have a right to require attribution, and you Who can take that away? > certainly have no duty to provide it in any particular form either. > Besides, Git is good enough for that for anyone who really wants to know. The problem with relying on Git is that there is no requirement to distribute the repo along with the, say, tarball. Eventually there will be only a tarball with modification outside of Git. Thus it is important to distribute a ChangeLog with the source (the GPL even requires such a list of changes not done by the original author)). A ChangeLog derived from a Git log should be sufficient because it allows to see who did changes at all. Shalom-Salam, Werner #include <ianal.h> -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
pgpt3qXfuCXCv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
