Copyright update
I have updated all the source files for a 2009 copyright; seems the
commit message was suppressed due to its size. Tom found a few more and
I have adjusted for those as well.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
--
Greg
On 1 Jan 2009, at 13:25, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
Show quoted text
I have updated all the source files for a 2009 copyright; seems the
commit message was suppressed due to its size. Tom found a few more
and
I have adjusted for those as well.--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
One work, I assume.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?One work, I assume.
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every source
file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only have to be one notice.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?One work, I assume.
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every source
file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only have to be one notice.
Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other
projects.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?One work, I assume.
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every source
file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only have to be one notice.Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other
projects.
I think the correct resolution to the question is to ask legal. Yes?
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
Greg Stark <greg.stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
[ shrug... ] We've always done it this way.
regards, tom lane
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?One work, I assume.
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every source
file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only have to be one notice.Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other
projects.I think the correct resolution to the question is to ask legal. Yes?
So I can get three different answers? It is not a priority for me.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?One work, I assume.
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every
source file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only have to
be one notice.
"Would only have to be one notice" is correct. You do not need a notice
in every file. You put a notice in every file as extra unnecessary
effort to make sure that people cannot possibly miss it. It is not a
requirement for copyright that every file have a copyright comment on
top. That it is in every source file is similar to putting extra parens
around expressions or embedding documentation in an API. It does not
indicate that the work is not a single work. It is simply making the
terms more explicit and easily accessible.
Most importantly, the *lack* of a copyright notice, does not indicate
that there is no copyright rights defined. If 10 files have a copyright
notice, and the 11th file does not, this does not indicate that the 11th
file has more or less copyright restrictions than the other 10 that are
explicit. The implicit copyright may be "All rights reserved" whereas
the explicit copyright may say "You may use this software for free
provided that you do not hold the authors responsible for any damages
caused by use of the software". Which is more restrictive?
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <mark@mielke.cc>
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Chernow wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every source
file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only have to be one notice.Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other
projects.
As per my previous message, although people do this, it is not "safer"
to copy a file without an explicit copyright embedded within the file,
than to copy a file without an explicit copyright embedded within the
file. The explicit copyright embedded serves more of a warning for
people that don't know better to guilt them into thinking twice before
doing whatever they are doing, than an actual legal requirement for
enforcement of copyright restrictions.
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <mark@mielke.cc>
On Thursday 01 January 2009 15:28:51 Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?One work, I assume.
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in
every source file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only
have to be one notice.Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other
projects.I think the correct resolution to the question is to ask legal. Yes?
So I can get three different answers? It is not a priority for me.
Nor does it need to be... copyright for organizations runs ~ 100 years, so a
year here or there is unlikely to make much difference to any of us. (Though
for future generations, we'd probably have been better off not having a
copyright notice at all).
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com