Copyright holders [ was: [kde-guidelines] Licenses]

[Frans Englich]

On Sunday 03 October 2004 19:10, zander at kde.org wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 06:46:30PM +0000, Frans Englich wrote:
> > is anonymous/no > copyright a valid copyrighter?.
>
> I understood you did not know the answer to that question in the first mail
> to this thread,which is why I posted the url.
> I'm not upset,  I just feel you made a mistake due to ignorace, so I point
> you to the resources to overcome that.

I don't want to be ignorant, neither think I am, and if I am, I want to 
understand in what way I am, so I can change it.

I still don't understand how I've been ignorant; when it was brought to 
attention I asked "How do you suggest it should be corrected?" -- I see that 
as a sign of cooperation. However, I committed a bug, but if that makes one 
ignorant, we have a lot of ignorant people.

But explain how I was ignorant. Let's say I had read that book you recommended 
or in some other way knew content is subject to copyright even if there's no 
copyrighter -- how would that make me act different? Currently I would do the 
same decision again. So.. the juridically correct would be to do nothing, 
since: I obviously couldn't contact the anonymous copyrighter; there was no 
reasonable way to find out who was the copyrighter; and doing anything would 
violate the copyright since I didn't have permission. Is that correct?


Cheers,

		Frans