On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 11:22 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
that makes sense in general, but (to my non-legally-trained eyes) it
looks like this patch is so simple that it very likely doesn't meet the
threshold of creativity that is required to be eligible for copyright
protection in the first place
I don't want to go there really. Please just re-implement the fix in a
different way - and/or if this is a really key-fix we can re-base that
one file in 3.6.
I'm glad author E-mails are going into svn these days - we can use them
in future post the re-base to ensure crediting / affiliations etc. are
correctly given.
ATB,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
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.