Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_...@example.net> writes: > I believe the eyecatchers evolved over time. First just the module > name. Then some pin-head lawyer in Armonk convinced them they needed a > copyright statement.
the other justification was the unbundling announcement and starting to charge for software (lots of legal action by the gov. and others) and then copyright law ambiquity ... did both the original source as well as the executable code require copyright statement? (they did manage to make the case that kernel software should still be free). misc. past posts mentioning 23jun69 unbundling http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#unbundle various copyrighted material makes statements about granting various kinds of rights for "derived works" (aka in the case of software, compiled/exeutable code) as long as the copyright notice is included. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
