On 18/09/11 22:49, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
[...]
The problem is that if no author is mentioned, then no matter what
copyright license is mentioned it can't be copied. That is because only
the author can grant copyright, and if the author is unknown that means
nothing can be granted.
In the case of wikipedia the author can be considered "the wikipedia
editors" as a collective. Quite a few open source projects have started
doing this to avoid having to list the names of all authors. This does
require agreeing to something, I don't know the details.
IIUC it means that the author has either put the work in the public
domain, or given the publisher an irrevocable license until the work
falls into the public domain 75 years after the author's death. Or
something like that, IANAL, nor do I play one on TV. I think I read
somewhere that current copyright laws don't require a Š line anymore and
that the author (physical person) cannot assign all intellectual
property rights to another physical or corporate person; but don't take
my word for it.
[Tim Starling wrote:]
I can't vouch for the quality of it. The quality of the original
version was certainly not good enough to warrant inclusion.
Well, let's await someone to claim maintainership then.
Let's.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
All I ask of life is a constant and exaggerated sense of my own
importance.
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
