on 6/8/01 1:28 PM, "Brian Goetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I write a new class, at the top of the code, I place:
>>
>> * Copyright (c) 1997, 2000 Douglass R. Cutting.
>> I then check that file into CVS or I post it to the mailing list.
>> I think that is a pretty clear assignment of copyright.
>
> Yes, that is. But what if you modify a file and don't modify the
> copyright header? That's a different story, and the more common case.
> That's what I was talking about.
I would say that the copyright would be on the patch itself and not on the
contribution. Therefore, once the patch had been contributed and checked
into CVS, if there was no copyright explicitly mentioned in the patch, then
the original owner is assumed to be giving up the copyright.
It takes effort to create a patch and send it in or check it into CVS. If
someone can make the effort to go through that trouble, then they can also
make sure to put a copyright on the contribution if they feel that they
deserve ownership of that patch.
-jon
--
"Open source is not available to commercial companies."
-Steve Balmer, CEO Microsoft
<http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html>
_______________________________________________
Lucene-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lucene-dev
