On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Fons Adriaensen <[email protected]> wrote:
> There is world of difference (also legally) between > > "Copyright (c) xxxxxx' > > and > > "Additional code/modifications by xxxxx" On Sep 19, 2013, at 17:22 03, J. Liles wrote: > Fons, I've been around the free-software block a time or two and I have to > say I have never *once* encountered the latter form of notation. Adding a > Copyright (c) line with dates is the standard practice, but (obviously?) only > to files that have actually been altered significantly. Anyone interested > (even those weasely lawyers) can run a diff against the two codebases to see > what was actually changed. FWIW, I have come across both notations in the wild, and have even done (been guilty of?) both practices myself. Personally, I would certainly never add a copyright notice to a file to which I had made no substantive change, but I have done so on files to which I have made significant modifications (being careful to preserve the original attributions and copyright notice(s) in the process). So it would seem that this may be a gray area. My own inclination therefore would be to cut the "offenders" some slack. We were all new at this at one point or another -- it'd be a shame to see one's work closed down over something like this. Cheers! |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. | Chief Developer | | | Paravel Systems | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many | | bad measures. | | -- Daniel Webster | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
