Actually there are a few that do not specifically note the LGPL, just the copyright from CAT. I think it would be fine just to make sure the LGPL notice is in each file. Thanks Sorry, I don't mean to make trouble, but we do have the "best" lawyers around :)
-----Original Message----- From: Simon Brocklehurst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:18 AM To: Emig, Robin Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biojava-l] Copyright notices "Emig, Robin" wrote: > Copyright © 2000,2001 Cambridge Antibody Technology. All Rights Reserved > > I noticed that many files contain the above copyright notice. > > 1) Does this conflict at all with the files being under lgpl As others have said, this isn't a problem with LGPL > > 2) regardless can we remove them? and put the lgpl notice? > -Robin Not really ;-) Making it as clear as is reasonably possible that we are the copyright holders of code that we author is important to us. It's also worth noting in this regard that the LGPL license actually *requires* that copyright holders assert their copyright (I think). The LGPL notices *are* present in all the source code files in the standard biojava way. Or at least these should be present - if any have been missed off in error, we need to add them If the copyright phrase is causing your legal department headaches (I don't think it should - the LGPL license is perfectly clear), we can explicitly add a phrase to the effect that standard LGPL license terms apply? Simon -- Simon M. Brocklehurst, Ph.D. Head of Bioinformatics & Advanced IS Cambridge Antibody Technology The Science Park, Melbourn, Cambridgeshire, UK http://www.CambridgeAntibody.com/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Biojava-l mailing list - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://biojava.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-l
