Does it have to have somekig of copyright notice ? Here (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Licensing/Print_Version) I can see : Nowadays, copyright law does not require formalities. The author does not need to publish, register, pay a registration fee of any kind, nor attach a copyright notice to his/her/its work, for the copyright to take effect. Copyright is automatically applied to a work once it is created [9] and the creator of the work automatically becomes the copyright holder.
Based on this, do we need at least some king of copyright notice that transfers the rights (which inherently belong to author, if not stated otherwise) ? http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-Notices On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Nils Faerber <nils.faer...@kernelconcepts.de> wrote: > Just my $0.05 from experience... > > Am 01.07.2011 07:28, schrieb Øyvind Harboe: >> Is there a GPL wiz in the house? >> >> Can we accept anonymous contributions just like that? >> >> I know there are anonymous contributions in Linux. > > The major issue with such contributions is when it comes to a dispute. > If you do not have a clear copyright holder and statement with the > original patch then anything can happen later. > The original author might suddenly pop up, provide proof the he/she is > the author and claim rights to this code/patch that are incompatible > with the project or other code it was included into. > This can cause *major* pain. So before accepting patches it is simply a > wise guideline to always require clear authorship and license before > incorporating third party code, no matter what size or significance. > Almost any line of code can break your code/license when it comes to > dispute (look at the many law suites from the past and current, e.g. SCO > vs. Linux, Oracle vs. Android). > > Cheers > nils > > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Uhler, Richard <ruh...@qualcomm.com> >> Date: Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:24 AM >> Subject: RE: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] Implementation of a remote >> bitbang jtag driver >> To: Øyvind Harboe <oyvind.har...@zylin.com> >> Cc: "openocd-development@lists.berlios.de" >> <openocd-development@lists.berlios.de> >> >> >> >> I have been instructed we can only make the contribution if no >> explicit copyright claim is required. Is that acceptable? >> >> Richard >> ________________________________________ >> From: Øyvind Harboe [oyvind.har...@zylin.com] >> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 8:42 AM >> To: Uhler, Richard >> Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de >> Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] Implementation of a remote >> bitbang jtag driver >> >> Hi, >> >> some comments: >> >> - new files, except for config and macro files, must have the >> gpl 2 or later license header and it must state the copyright >> holder(you in this case). >> - the option should be --enable-remote-bitbang, not --enable-remote_bitbang >> to be more consistent with other options. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Øyvind Harboe - Can Zylin Consulting help on your project? >> US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / International +47 51 87 40 27 >> http://www.zylin.com/ > > -- > kernel concepts GbR Tel: +49-271-771091-12 > Sieghuetter Hauptweg 48 > D-57072 Siegen Mob: +49-176-21024535 > http://www.kernelconcepts.de > > _______________________________________________ > Openocd-development mailing list > Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development > _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
