Menu
▾
▴
Re: [ jEdit-devel ] files lacking copyright notice
|
From: Vampire <Va...@jE...> - 2011-11-21 22:12:04
|
It is not my interpretation it is the pure words that say "should" and "it is safest to". Those words don't force you to do anything but only suggest what is best to do. I don't need credentials or court experience to be able to read such simple words. Also, I never said the copyright notices should be left out but I always said the copyright notices should be there as it is a very good idea to have them there like *suggested* in that appendix. Of course the GPL authors are competent in what they do and they are right suggesting to do what they suggest and I fully agree and always did and stated that those suggestions should be followed. The only thing I said is, that you don't HAVE to do so, but that it is nevertheless a very good idea to DO so, even if you don't HAVE to. And now I will stop this discussion. Regards Vampire Jarek Czekalski schrieb: > Vampire > > So you presented your interpretation of some GPL appendix statements. > But what are your credentials and what is your court experience in > international copyright law? If you have none, than it would be safer to > follow the advices which are given by GPL authors in the appendix. I > believe they are competent in what they do. > > Jarek > > W dniu 11/20/2011 07:01 PM, Vampire pisze: > >> Jarek Czekalski schrieb: >> >>> W dniu 11/20/2011 03:42 AM, Vampire pisze: >>> >>> >>>> Jarek Czekalski schrieb: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I notice a file PVActions.java (from ProjectViewer) lacks copyright >>>>> notice. ... GPL licence requires such a >>>>> notice. ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> GPL does not require such a notice. >>>> >>>> >>> A quotation from section "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" >>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html#howto >>> >>> and each file *should* have at least the “copyright” line and a pointer >>> to where the full notice is found. >>> >>> The section describes how to prepare GNU GPL software. While "terms and >>> conditions" are important for a receiver of gpl software, these >>> guidelines are important for those who produce such software. So I was >>> right saying it *is required*. I don't know exactly why did you say that >>> the notice is not required, while the rest of your post explains that >>> you consider it an important requirement. I'm writing this because >>> someone may misunderstand your first sentence. >>> >>> >> Because it IS not required. "Should" means you should add it, but not >> you "have to" a.k.a. "must" add it, but it is a good idea to do it. >> Even if the GPL would require the notice to be there you wouldn't have >> to do it as you could say the code is under GPL except for that >> clause, because you are free to put your code under any license terms >> you want and thus can also grant a license that is only similar to GPL >> but has own terms, additions or leftouts. >> >>>> Nowhere in GPL this is stated and you would be completely fine to just >>>> add a license notice mentioning GPL in an extra file. >>>> The GPL page though suggests that you add such a header to the file to >>>> clearly state the exclusion of warranty and license of the code, but >>>> that is just an additional suggestion below the real license terms. >>>> >>>> >>> It's not only on GPL page, but also in jedit file doc/COPYING.txt. >>> That's another proof that these statements are more than just a >>> "suggestion". >>> >>> >> It is not, what is in COPYING.txt is the same that is on the webpage. >> It is just a suggestion. I'll quote now the relevant part we are >> talking about and add some mental additions to it in square brackets: >> >> To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest >> to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively >> convey the exclusion of warranty; >> [but you can also just put it in one file beneath your source code, >> that would also count as "attach it to your program"] >> and each file should have at least the "copyright" line and a pointer >> to where the full notice is found >> [to make it clear for someone having only that file what license it is >> under, who the copyright owner is and that there is an exclusion of >> warranty, but you don't have to do, it is just a good idea to do so] >> >> Regards >> Vampire >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure > contains a definitive record of customers, 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-novd2d > |
