[Libreoffice] Fwd: Re: [PATCH] Use a generic unxgcc.mk

[Wols Lists]

On 17/11/10 16:18, René Kjellerup wrote:
>
> sent from my phone
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "René Kjellerup" <rk.katana.steel at gmail.com
> <mailto:rk.katana.steel at gmail.com>>
> Date: Nov 17, 2010 5:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] Use a generic unxgcc.mk
> <http://unxgcc.mk>
> To: "Caolán McNamara" <caolanm at redhat.com <mailto:caolanm at redhat.com>>
>
> Why the oracle copyright notice in the new file too?
> Shouldn't they have a TDF notice instead ?
>

The whole point of a copyright notice is to say who *OWNS* the
copyright, and the date of that ownership.

Just because TDF has forked OOo doesn't mean we now legally own it.
>
> Just asking
>

Doing as you suggest (removing the Oracle notice) is actually
*illegal*!!! (unless we remove all the Oracle-owned code at the same
time :-) If you don't know what you're doing, you should NEVER alter a
copyright notice - just add a new one claiming your own copyright on the
code you yourself wrote and added.

Whoops - just noticed what you said about "new" file. If it truly is
new, then no it shouldn't have an Oracle notice. However, I get the
impression that it's actually just a rename, so no, legally it isn't new.
>
> Regards
> René
>
>
Cheers,
Wol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20101117/a29d1e1d/attachment-0001.htm>