2 Aug
2009
2 Aug
'09
5:57 a.m.
Robert Keller wrote:
On Aug 1, 2009, at 4:04 PM, nescivi wrote:
Hi Bob :)
the headers done by other authors are still copyright by the original
authors. The code done by the Harvey Mudd College is copyright by it.
This always must be recognisable. I didn't download your source code,
that's why I don't know if the copyrights are done right or wrong, but I
guess this is the reason for the discord. Even if you changed headers
original done by other authors for more than 50% of the code, it must be
noticeable who was the original author and that you changed it. There's
a stipulation: "a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent
notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."
Hth,
Ralf
On Saturday 01 August 2009 13:36:20
laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
We employ the students, so we own the copyright.
Bob On Saturday 01 August 2009 11:32:24 nescivi
wrote:
Bob Keller has to comment on that for the precise situation, but it
may well
be that student's work in his institution, are copyrighted by the
institution.
sincerely,
Marije
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 00:49:09 David
Robillard wrote:
[snip]
On another related point. I am still wondering what is up with the
copyright changes that took place between version 2.04 and 3.39. I
have the
2.04 source and I see that there are a number of people who have
copyrights
indicated in the GPL headers for that. Then when you look at the 3.39
headers it only says that the copyrights belong to Keller and his
educational institution. What is the situation with that?
Either everybody transferred their copyrights to him and the
institution or
this is another set of violations (one for each person who had their
respective copyright removed/changed). Personally, I would like see
everybody who did work on that have their proper copyrights
indicated.
Some clarification would be helpful.