On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On the other hand, there's this [1] and this [2] from the FSF, which >> recommend a copyright blurb at the beginning of every source file. >> Though actually the recommendation is to include a GPL blurb too, not >> just a naked copyright line like I used. But I get the feeling that the >> FSF's recommendation is more for ideological than for legal reasons. > > It is relatively recent (late 1980s) that US became part of Berne > Convention (1886). Before that you had to write Copyright and All > Rights Reserved (or Todos Derechos Reserrvados) in Buenos Aires > days. Quoting from wikipedia[1] (note however that when the United States joined the Convention in 1988, it continued to make statutory damages and attorney's fees only available for registered works). Does that mean if somebody would infringe the GPL on git (e.g. selling a modified git version without giving sources), it would be harder to tell him to stop because of the missing attorney's fees in case we drop out the copyright notices? (I have no deep understanding of legal processes in the US). > > It is not surprising to see the more cautious practice from the > older days in recommendations by an old organization like FSF. > >>>> Is there a reason you did not append the tests in 7509 ? You convinced me that having to start with an orphan commit justifies a new test file as well as the nature of the test. >>> >>> Hmph. >> >> I don't know what "Hmph" means in this context. > > "Hmph, it might deserve more thought, but I do not have opinion > right now". [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html