[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS-SVN] r30246 - grass/trunk/lib/gis

[Glynn Clements]

Ivan Shmakov wrote:

> >>>>> Moritz Lennert <mlennert at club.worldonline.be> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
>  >>>> Oh, I'm not against including the GPL boilerplate: "This program
>  >>>> is free software ...".
> 
>  >>>> But adding an explicit "(C) <date> <author>" line isn't useful,
>  >>>> IMHO.
> 
>  >>> Actually, I'm in doubt whether the GPL notice will have any legal
>  >>> value without the proper ``(C)'' line.  Unless someone relieve me
>  >>> of this concern, I'd prefer to put this line as I've been doing
>  >>> before.
> 
>  >> Just how many times do I have to explain it to you?
> 
>  >> If you don't understand copyright, consult a lawyer.
> 
>  > Just to plead for the ignorant here ;-):
> 
>  > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-howto.html
> 
>  > There is an explicit mention of a copyright line:
> 
>  > "Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two
>  > elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice
>  > (such as  Copyright 1999 Terry Jones), and a statement of
>  > copying permission, saying that the program is distributed under the
>  > terms of the GNU General Public License (or the Lesser GPL)."
> 
> 	Thanks for bringing it here, that's the very point of my
> 	concern.
> 
> 	I know that the absence of the ``copyright'' line won't
> 	invalidate my copyright.  I'm concerned that the absence of such
> 	a line may invalidate the /copying permissions/ stated in the
> 	file, thus rendering the file non-redistributable and
> 	non-modifiable (except by its author.)

I can't see how that can possibly be the case.

Permission to perform actions which are restricted by copyright law is
legally no different to permission to perform actions restricted by
some other law.

For binary distributions, the permission to copy is normally only
stated in the included copy of the GPL, and the only copyright line in
that file is the one for the GPL itself, not the work which is
licensed under it.

In any case, the issue of the desirability (or lack thereof) of
including such a line is essentially moot. There is no way that
G_parser() can determine either the author of the script or the date
of first publication.

If you want that line, you would be better off including a fixed
string, e.g.:

	Copyright <author> <date of first publication>

and relying upon the author to fill in the details.

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com>