On 06/25/2011 10:56 PM, DRC wrote: > I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S., a copyright is only > meaningful if assigned to a legal entity, which can be an individual, a > corporation, or an "assumed name" (a person or corporation "doing > business as" an entity.) "TigerVNC Team" has no legal definition under > U.S. law, because it is not registered as an assumed name or corporation. > > In terms of giving credit in ReadMe files or About dialogs, it doesn't > really matter. Those copyright messages are more attributions than > assignments, and I think it's fine to use "TigerVNC Team" there. > However, in the banners we add to source files, it's really better to be > specific about who owned the intellectual property of the modification > being made. This would become important if the legality of open > sourcing a particular piece of code ever got called into question. > > I looked at the UltraVNC code, and in the ReadMe files, they just print > > Copyright (C) 2002-2009 Ultr@VNC Team - All rights reserved > > In the About dialog, however, they print the massive historical list. > However, I note that all of the other entries are pre-2002, so they > apparently lump everything after 2002 into "Ultr@VNC Team". > > We could do the same for our ReadMe files and About dialogs and lump > everything after 2009 into "TigerVNC Team", i.e.: > > Copyright (C) 1998-2009 [many holders] > Copyright (C) 2009-2011 TigerVNC Team > > or maybe > > Copyright (C) 1998-2011 TigerVNC Team [and many others]
This seems the best (and shortest) for me. However I'm also OK with Peter's proposal. Regards, Adam > or a middle-ground solution of documenting everything before 2009 and > lumping everything after 2009 into "TigerVNC Team." > > My opinion is: let the source files be a record of who contributed > what, and don't try to reproduce that in the ReadMe files. However, I > will go with whatever the majority decides. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 _______________________________________________ Tigervnc-devel mailing list Tigervnc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-devel
