Patch for the repaint issue in the collection dialog
ian.monroe at gmail.com
Tue Mar 31 23:24:43 CEST 2009
2009/3/31 Alex Merry <kde at randomguy3.me.uk>:
> On Tuesday 31 March 2009 01:32:36 Jeff Mitchell wrote:
>> >>> And adding your name doesn't create the licensing issue. Adding
>> >>> copyrightable code gives you a copyright whether you list your name or
>> >>> not.
>> Does it? This doesn't make much sense from the perspective of the rule
>> of thumb we've always used, and which Seb stated:
> Yes. Copyright is inherent in the creation under international copyright law
> (some treaty or other I can't remember the name of). What exactly constitutes
> copyrightable work, however, is a bit of a hazy area, and the courts are
> forever tweaking it. And the yardstick is almost certainly different in
> different countries.
> I believe the rule about whether work is copyrightable basically revolves
> around whether it involved any creativity. A significant new algorithm is
> certainly copyrightable. A set of stubs for an already-defined header
> probably isn't. In between... well, people are paid a lot of money to argue
> about that.
> The copyright tag at the top of files is informative. Removing the line
> doesn't not remove a person's copyright claim on that work. The lines are
> there so that people who want to (re-)license the work know who to contact.
> As such, I would say always err on the side of adding copyright lines. From a
> legal point of view, it's better to obtain the permission of someone who
> doesn't hold a copyright than not to obtain the permission of someone who does
> when relicensing a work.
> Standard disclaimer: IANAL. Just interested in such issues. Do not take my
> word: if you care about this issue, research it yourself.
IANAL, but I read "copyright/copywrongs" so that makes me more
informed then some lawyers (if you ever meet a lawyer from the SFLC
ask them to tell you some stories lol) and I approve the above
More information about the Amarok-devel