[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       serdev
Subject:    [Serdev] mediaproxy copyright issue
From:       dan () ag-projects ! com (Dan Pascu)
Date:       2004-03-25 14:44:14
Message-ID: 200403251546.51261.dan () ag-projects ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thursday 25 March 2004 14:08, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Dan Pascu wrote:
> Why not just put Porta's name in? Porta is the only copyright holder for
> nathelper core, so that I really do not see why to insist on using
> unclear "them" instead of Porta Software Ltd. This is why to me your

I can add this if that is sufficient with you. However note that it only 
appears in the credits section. 
If you want me to write

Copyright (c) Porta Software Ltd. 

at the top of the file that is a different matter.

> version still looks unfair. I have made an conclusion that you are
> trying to arrange in such a way that no company other than AG is
> mentioned in the mediaproxy code/documentation. We can't agree with that
> either.

Sorry? No. I don't mind if your company name appears in the file as long as
it appears only where it has ownership.
But you have pushed hard you want full module ownership and that is what I 
don't want for reasons described before.

Other than that, sure I can. Above the functions, or in the credits section. 
But not as a main copyright holder.

I put indirect references because this way when someone reads the code and 
sees that the function is (c) by the authors of the nathelper code it can 
check the nathelper code to see who is copyright holder (this can change over 
time).
If you prefer direct references I'll change, however note that if copyright 
info changes in the nathelper module it won't reflect in the references.

The copyright notice in the readme is about the readme itself. Unless you have 
wrote a single word in that file you are not entitled to this.

-- 
Dan

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]