On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:20 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Nadeem Vawda wrote:
>> [snip]
>
> Since you'll be adding new IP to Python, the new code you write should
> contain your copyright and the standard PSF contributor agreement
> notice, e.g.
>
> """
> (c) Copyright 2011 by Nadeem Vawda. Licensed
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:20:59 +0100
"M.-A. Lemburg" wrote:
> Nadeem Vawda wrote:
> > I was wondering what the policy is regarding copyright notices and license
> > boilerplate text at the top of source files.
> >
> > I am currently rewriting the bz2 module (see
> > http://bugs.python.org/issue586
Nadeem Vawda wrote:
> I was wondering what the policy is regarding copyright notices and license
> boilerplate text at the top of source files.
>
> I am currently rewriting the bz2 module (see
> http://bugs.python.org/issue5863),
> splitting the existing Modules/bz2module.c into Modules/_bz2modul
I was wondering what the policy is regarding copyright notices and license
boilerplate text at the top of source files.
I am currently rewriting the bz2 module (see http://bugs.python.org/issue5863),
splitting the existing Modules/bz2module.c into Modules/_bz2module.c and
Lib/bz2.py.
Are new file
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> 2009/1/20 Raymond Hettinger :
>>>
>>> I'm at a loss of why the notice needs to be there at all.
>>
>> There's a difference between contributing a whole file and
>> contributing a patch. Patches do not require copy
Guido van Rossum wrote:
2009/1/20 Raymond Hettinger :
I'm at a loss of why the notice needs to be there at all.
There's a difference between contributing a whole file and
contributing a patch. Patches do not require copyright notices. Whole
files do. This is not affected by later edits to the
I would be all for cleaning up, if the lawyers agree, but I've spent
enough time talking to lawyers for the rest of my life. You know where
to reach Van Lindberg.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
> [Raymond Hettinger]
>>>
>>> I'm at a loss of why the notice needs to be
[Raymond Hettinger]
I'm at a loss of why the notice needs to be there at all.
[GvR]
There's a difference between contributing a whole file and
contributing a patch. Patches do not require copyright notices. Whole
files do. This is not affected by later edits to the file.
That makes sense.
2009/1/20 Raymond Hettinger :
> I'm at a loss of why the notice needs to be there at all.
There's a difference between contributing a whole file and
contributing a patch. Patches do not require copyright notices. Whole
files do. This is not affected by later edits to the file.
> AFAICT, we've
> h
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> [Terry Reedy]
>>
>> Bottom line to me. The current notion of copyright does not work too well
>> with evolving, loosely collective works (which eventually become
>> 'folklore').
>
> I'm at a loss of why the notice needs to be there at al
[Terry Reedy]
Bottom line to me. The current notion of copyright does not work too
well with evolving, loosely collective works (which eventually become
'folklore').
I'm at a loss of why the notice needs to be there at all. AFAICT, we've
had tons of contributions from googlers and only one h
On 2009-01-20 16:54, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> M.-A. Lemburg writes:
> > On 2009-01-20 11:02, Michael Foord wrote:
>
> > > Mere collections of facts are not copyrightable as they are not
> > > creative (the basis of copyright)
>
> That's incorrect in the U.S.; what is copyrightable is an *o
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
On 2009-01-20 00:56, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Why does numbers.py say:
# Copyright 2007 Google, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
# Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement.
Because that's where that file originated, I guess. This is part
of what you have to do for thi
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg writes:
> On 2009-01-20 11:02, Michael Foord wrote:
> > Mere collections of facts are not copyrightable as they are not
> > creative (the basis of copyright)
That's incorrect in the U.S.; what is copyrightable is an *original
work of expression fixed
M.-A. Lemburg writes:
> On 2009-01-20 11:02, Michael Foord wrote:
> > Mere collections of facts are not copyrightable as they are not
> > creative (the basis of copyright)
That's incorrect in the U.S.; what is copyrightable is an *original
work of expression fixed in some medium*. "Original"
On 2009-01-20 11:02, Michael Foord wrote:
> M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> [snip...]
>>
>>> Does the copyright concept even apply to an
>>> abstract base class (I thought APIs were not
>>> subject to copyright, just like database layouts
>>> and language definitions)?
>>>
>>
>> It applies to the wr
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
[snip...]
Does the copyright concept even apply to an
abstract base class (I thought APIs were not
subject to copyright, just like database layouts
and language definitions)?
It applies to the written program text. You are probably
thinking about other IP rights su
On 2009-01-20 00:56, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> Why does numbers.py say:
>
># Copyright 2007 Google, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
># Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement.
Because that's where that file originated, I guess. This is part
of what you have to do for things that are lice
Raymond Hettinger writes:
> Does the copyright concept even apply to an abstract base class (I
> thought APIs were not subject to copyright, just like database
> layouts and language definitions)?
Yes, it does, although a public API per se is not subject to
copyright, because there's only one
Why does numbers.py say:
# Copyright 2007 Google, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
# Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement.
Weren't there multiple contributors including non-google people?
Does Google want to be associated with code that
was submitted with no tests?
Do we want this sort
20 matches
Mail list logo
