From: Christian Neukirchen Date: 2005-05-13T04:41:03+09:00 Subject: Re: [OT] Request for advice on applying a license Ben Giddings writes: > On Thursday 12 May 2005 10:16, Christian Neukirchen wrote: >> > The source really should (maybe must) contain a copyright notice. Once > it >> > is copyrighted, by default, people's ability to use the source is > severely >> > limited. The GPL and other similar licenses give people additional > rights >> > they wouldn't otherwise have. >> >> IANAL, but isn't the file copyrighted automatically due to the Berne >> Convention? > > Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the file is automatically copyrighted, but I > think that's a technicality that you shouldn't count on. It's like > leaving your door unlocked. If someone walks into your house and steals > something the law says you're 100% in the right and they're 100% wrong, > but try to convince a police officer to do anything about it if you didn't > do anything at all to protect yourself. *Well*, at least in Germany, the latter would be considered "bluntly negligent" (grob fahrl�ssig), whereas you can even get sued by copying publicly available texts or pictures from the net. You need to prove in any way that the source really is yours. Illegal copies will possibly get stripped from the copyright header, anyway. > I think if you want to have people respect your copyright at a minimum you > have to mention that it exists, even if technically you don't need to. As said, I never questioned the usefulness of a copyright notice. :-) > Ben -- Christian Neukirchen http://chneukirchen.org