On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 8:09 PM, jonathon jonathon.bl...@gmail.com wrote:
skipped
Note # 4: The copyright list states who the copyright holder was, when
it was published, not who the current copyright holder is;
Wrong. Copyright notice reflects a name of copyright holder and year
when code was
Hi All,
Today I worked on the versioninfo sections of LibO Windows
executables. See: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30798
Please let me know when you reach consensus upon what to use as
CompanyName and LegalCopyright. For those who don't know, these
appear in the file properties
jonathon wrote:
Note # 3: I'm assuming that Sun, Inc was the sole copyright owner, for
code added to OOo during the years it ran the project. If it wasn't,
the other copyright owners need to have their names added;
Well, there were/are code parts that were/are distributed *with* the
binaries
Hi all,
Don't know if this is the right list to post to... anyway...
If I go to help--About LibreOffice I see:
LibreOffice 3.3.0
OOO330m7 (Build:9526)
ooo-build 2010-09-24
Copyright © 2000, 2010
Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Don't think it's
correct, is it?
Ciao cico
On 2010-10-08 10:27 AM, El Cico wrote:
If I go to help--About LibreOffice I see:
LibreOffice 3.3.0
OOO330m7 (Build:9526)
ooo-build 2010-09-24
Copyright © 2000, 2010
Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Don't think it's
correct, is it?
Its the very first beta being
Charles Marcus wrote:
Its the very first beta being offered, it was inevitable some things
would be missed...
Unless - maybe legally the copyrights have to stay (hope not)?
It has to stay. :)
--
Tempesta e Passione sbarcano su Amazon.com:
On 10/08/2010 02:37 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
Copyright © 2000, 2010
Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Don't think it's correct, is it?
Its the very first beta being offered, it was inevitable some things wo
uld be missed...
Unless - maybe legally the copyrights have to
Hey Jonathon,
Welcome to this list. There is one thing which also needs to be understood
and mentioned: the Document Foundation does not take the copyright of its
contributors. So we should not be listed as copyright owners.
Charles.
Le 8 oct. 2010, 7:10 PM, jonathon jonathon.bl...@gmail.com a
On 08/10/2010 18:09, jonathon wrote:
On 10/08/2010 02:37 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
Copyright © 2000, 2010
Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Don't think it's correct, is it?
Its the very first beta being offered, it was inevitable some things wo
uld be missed...
Unless -
On 10/08/2010 05:18 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
the Document Foundation does not take the copyright of its contributors
. So we should not be listed as copyright owners.
Document Foundation has a copyright in the selection of the code that is
used for the specific version of the program. This
Hi,
2010/10/8 Peter Hillier-Brook p...@hbsys.plus.com:
On 08/10/2010 18:09, jonathon wrote:
On 10/08/2010 02:37 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
Copyright © 2000, 2010
Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Don't think it's correct, is it?
Its the very first beta being offered, it
11 matches
Mail list logo
