Re: Documentation copyright/licensing

2008-07-09 Thread Joerg Jaspert 
On 11441 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:

 Now, each HTML file contains this comment:
 Generated by Doxygen 1.3.9.1
 Each file also contains this footer:
 Copyright copy; 2005-2008 Intel Corporation.  All Rights Reserved.

 When I inquired in #debian-devel, AzaThat indicated that the All Rights
 Reserved has little or no legal meaning anymore.  I wanted to get some
 opinions on this list before I upload however.

It doesn't have much meaning if the license is otherwise specified and
there are no doubts about it. If its the only statement one can find in
the sources then one has problems.

 All of the program sources are clearly covered under GPL2.  The
 documentation is mechanically generated from the sources.  Does the
 footer statement on documentation pages conflict with that license.  My
 initial inclination is that it does not.  Any other opinions?

If its like this you can just upload and it wont get rejected.

-- 
bye, Joerg
exa There is no point in trying to fix bugs if I won't have an
  account. Sorry.


pgptTXngQ88D8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Documentation copyright/licensing

2008-07-08 Thread Roberto C . Sánchez 
[Please keep me in the CC, as I am not subscribed to -legal]

I am preparing an upload to tbb.  With this upload, a new binary package
will be introduced, called libtbb-doc.  It will include HTML
documentation files that were generated by Doxygen from the tbb program
sources.  Because of the new binary package, it will have to pass NEW
processing again, which is why I am posting this message to the list.

Now, each HTML file contains this comment:

Generated by Doxygen 1.3.9.1

Each file also contains this footer:

Copyright copy; 2005-2008 Intel Corporation.  All Rights Reserved.

When I inquired in #debian-devel, AzaThat indicated that the All Rights
Reserved has little or no legal meaning anymore.  I wanted to get some
opinions on this list before I upload however.

All of the program sources are clearly covered under GPL2.  The
documentation is mechanically generated from the sources.  Does the
footer statement on documentation pages conflict with that license.  My
initial inclination is that it does not.  Any other opinions?

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature