On 24 July 2014 14:58, Anthony J. Bentley <[email protected]> wrote: > Kevin Brubeck Unhammer writes: >> Should there be a policy for new data? Like GPLv2-or-later or >> GPLv3-or-later. (I think having anything be GPLvN-only could lead to >> trouble, but I don't know if people have strong feelings on this.) > > More importantly, as a packager I would like to see a policy of > including a copyright statement, including author names and years, > in each copyrightable source file. (See the section of the GPL marked > "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs", but this applies to > any license). In my opinion, files without such a copyright statement > are close enough to "all rights reserved" in modern copyright law > that they should be avoided by open source projects. (IANAL, etc.)
The absence of a disclaimer to the contrary is generally understood to mean exactly "all rights reserved", as that is the default (there was formerly a requirement to add that phrase, but that's no longer the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_rights_reserved#Obsolescence). It's something that has come up a lot in recent times, because of Github. -- <Sefam> Are any of the mentors around? <jimregan> yes, they're the ones trolling you ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
