Re: Copyright update

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(at)mielke(dot)cc>