>>>>> Moritz Lennert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
>>>> Oh, I'm not against including the GPL boilerplate: "This program >>>> is free software ...". >>>> But adding an explicit "(C) <date> <author>" line isn't useful, >>>> IMHO. >>> Actually, I'm in doubt whether the GPL notice will have any legal >>> value without the proper ``(C)'' line. Unless someone relieve me >>> of this concern, I'd prefer to put this line as I've been doing >>> before. >> Just how many times do I have to explain it to you? >> If you don't understand copyright, consult a lawyer. > Just to plead for the ignorant here ;-): > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-howto.html > There is an explicit mention of a copyright line: > "Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two > elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice > (such as ⌠Copyright 1999 Terry Jones■), and a statement of > copying permission, saying that the program is distributed under the > terms of the GNU General Public License (or the Lesser GPL)." Thanks for bringing it here, that's the very point of my concern. I know that the absence of the ``copyright'' line won't invalidate my copyright. I'm concerned that the absence of such a line may invalidate the /copying permissions/ stated in the file, thus rendering the file non-redistributable and non-modifiable (except by its author.) _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
