On 22/02/08 05:04, Glynn Clements wrote:
Ivan Shmakov wrote:
Or just omit it.
AFAIK, a specific notice of copyright isn't particularly
meaningful any more.
[...]
The notices like this are very convenient for the ones
``curious'' of the conditions under which the file can be used.
They're of exceptional value for the free software, since they
explicitly allow the code to be modified and distributed.
Without such a notice (either in COPYING, or in the file), the
file cannot be either modified or distributed at all.
Oh, I'm not against including the GPL boilerplate: "This program
is free software ...".
But adding an explicit "(C) <date> <author>" line isn't useful,
IMHO.
Actually, I'm in doubt whether the GPL notice will have any legal
value without the proper ``(C)'' line. Unless someone relieve me
of this concern, I'd prefer to put this line as I've been doing
before.
Just how many times do I have to explain it to you?
If you don't understand copyright, consult a lawyer.
Just to plead for the ignorant here ;-):
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-howto.html
There is an explicit mention of a copyright line:
"Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two
elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice (such
as “Copyright 1999 Terry Jones”), and a statement of copying permission,
saying that the program is distributed under the terms of the GNU
General Public License (or the Lesser GPL)."
Moritz
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
