On Tuesday 19 November 2002 18:32, Sigbjorn Finne wrote: > ok, I've now rolled most of the dists, and won't redo them > just to incorporate this one, I'm afraid. > > --sigbjorn > > btw, I try to stay blissfully ignorant of these kinds of issues, but > what's the correct/legal thing to do re: extending copyright dates > on evolving software? Most parties named in this copyright notice > doesn't participate nor contribute any longer, but indirectly get the > recognition of doing so by extending the copyright.
Take this non-legal position with the appropriate grain of salt: Unless the people contributing to the evolution of the software maintain their contributions solely as patches, then the evolved software is a derivative of the original, and thus the copyright remains with them. For the copyright to begin to rest with a different, or reduced, set of authors, an actual transfer of copyrights would have to take place. I'm guessing this hasn't happened. So, the right still rests with the original set of authors, and at least *some* of them are still participating, so the rest get to go along for the ride. If *none* of the original copyright holders were still participating, then it would be inappropriate to change the copyright date. --Jeff _______________________________________________ Cvs-hugs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-hugs
