On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:00:27PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Sylvain Beucler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tapota : > > The method from maintain.texi has the advantage of being validated by > > a lawyer specialized in international copyright laws, so I didn't > > really try to figure out what would look more appealing or ugly, what > > would give more or less information - I just use this documented > > standard, just as it is. > > Sure, but did the lawyer speciliazed in international copyright laws > invalidated the other format (which contained more or less exactly the > same info - the only clear difference is between putting every years > or not, which seems not so important in fine).
Let's put it another way: was the format you use validated? > Cosmetics does not necessarily invalidate a document from a legal > point of view, as long as it is unequivocal, as matter of > facts. Since, anyway, we are in an international context (meaning: a > messy mixture of national contexts), many others questions would arise > if we were about to question such aspects. Frankly, for a program like > Savane, was matters is that copyright info is here, with the date, > name, relevant address. And if we can make it the easier way to read, > go for it, because if someday we were to sue someone regarding to > savane, I doubt this issue would make any difference. If you think that we can chose a notation for the copyright notices, then ok. As far as I am concerned, I don't think so, just like I wouldn't try to write my own license. Now, if you still want to use your notation, I'll follow it for consistency. -- Sylvain _______________________________________________ Savane-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/savane-dev
