> >I suppose there's some question here -- what does "a complete description" > >mean? My point was that all license terms must be stated explicitly.
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 02:48:49PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote: > No, in this you are wrong. Copyright notice is this: > (C) Humberto Massa 2004 > Just this and nothing else. > Not a license statement, nothing like that. Just the copyright symbol, > the name of the copyright holder, and the year (so people know when your > copyright will expire). Right -- and if you do that, I have been granted no rights to make copies of that work. > In the movies, they generally show it as the last thing of the credits, > with the year in roman numerals. In books, it's generally in the first > (paper) page or in the last one. > (C) Humberto Massa Movies MMIV. > This is the *legal* definition of "Copyright notice", according to the > Geneva Convention. Sure, and since something like 30 years ago, you don't even have to have the copyright notice placed on a work to retain exclusive copy rights. Which has absolutely nothing to do with licensing terms. > >However, if "a complete description of the licensing terms" means > >something other than "all license terms must be stated explicitly" > >then I don't see what contrast he is trying to draw. > You said that putting copyright notices could be against some license > terms. I did? Where? > Or copyright by itself. It's not. Some free-or-semi-free license > that permits you to modify the work (GPL certainly) permits you to put > your copyright notices in the files you modified. Now I'm lost. I don't have a clue what you are talking about. -- Raul
