On 17/11/10 16:18, René Kjellerup wrote:
sent from my phone
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "René Kjellerup" <rk.katana.steel@gmail.com
<mailto:rk.katana.steel@gmail.com>>
Date: Nov 17, 2010 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] Use a generic unxgcc.mk
<http://unxgcc.mk>
To: "Caolán McNamara" <caolanm@redhat.com <mailto:caolanm@redhat.com>>
Why the oracle copyright notice in the new file too?
Shouldn't they have a TDF notice instead ?
The whole point of a copyright notice is to say who *OWNS* the
copyright, and the date of that ownership.
Just because TDF has forked OOo doesn't mean we now legally own it.
Just asking
Doing as you suggest (removing the Oracle notice) is actually
*illegal*!!! (unless we remove all the Oracle-owned code at the same
time :-) If you don't know what you're doing, you should NEVER alter a
copyright notice - just add a new one claiming your own copyright on the
code you yourself wrote and added.
Whoops - just noticed what you said about "new" file. If it truly is
new, then no it shouldn't have an Oracle notice. However, I get the
impression that it's actually just a rename, so no, legally it isn't new.
Regards
René
Cheers,
Wol
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.