Re: Manoj, why are you suggesting to infringe the copyright law?
Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> Every source file should have a header where it says "This work is
> copyrighted under whatever license".
Should, but often don't.
> Just because a license is in the same tar archive does not mean that all
> files are covered under it.
I think it can be reaonably argued that a file is to a tarball as a page is
to a book. Thus just as the copyright statement in the front of a book
applies to every page or chapter that does not have its own copyright
statement, the COPYING file in a tarball where the files don't contain your
header could be considered to apply to every file that lacks a copyright
statement of its own.
> I don't know what license applies to license which come without license.
"All Rights Reserved"
> Maybe copyright law says something about it.
The US statutes are silent on the subject.
> Oh well. At some point, it seems that common practice is not rock-solid,
> and maybe never will.
The question may never have come up, since traditional publishers care only
about preventing redistribution.
> As we have no way to pay a lawyer to solve all the issues involved, we
> should do what Manoj said and try our best to comply to law.
And in order to do so we must try our best to figure out what the law is.
Didn't someone mention recently say something about hooking up with an IP
lawyer for some pro bono work? We need a copyright policy document.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
john@dhh.gt.org Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Reply to: