> So if you use blank lines in any of your files, you are in blatant violation of AT&T's copyright claim.
I think it has to be exactly these three blank lines, not just any three blank lines.
The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
21–30 of 86 posts
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#22Companies have to vigorously protect their intellectual property and copyright of source regardless. If they fail in one instance to assert those then it can badly impact them when it matters.
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#23Companies have to vigorously protect their intellectual property and copyright of source regardless. If they fail in one instance to assert those then it can badly impact them when it matters.
This is false in the United States. Failure to assert copyright does not relinquish it. Trademark does, however, because it is connected to brand recognition concepts.
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#24Companies have to vigorously protect their intellectual property and copyright of source regardless. If they fail in one instance to assert those then it can badly impact them when it matters.
I heard this about brands. Do you have examples for copyright?
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#25Adding copyright notices to every source code file is reasonable because it costs next to nothing. Figuring out what is copyrightable, on the other hand, is expensive, because it requires lawyers, and a waste of time because lawyers' answers are always "it depends". You never actually know how enforceable your copyright claim is until you actually litigate, which is REALLY expensive.
> Adding copyright notices to every source code file is reasonable because it costs next to nothing. Yes, if your integrity is worthless.
My company doesn't require this, but I also don't understand in any way how adding copyright boilerplate to each source file has anything to do with the writer's integrity. Are the people in the GNU foundation lacking in integrity, since they have this policy?
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#26> So if you use blank lines in any of your files, you are in blatant violation of AT&T's copyright claim. I think it has to be exactly these three blank lines, not just any three blank lines.
Does someone need to write an essay titled "What Colour is your whitespace?"?
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adding copyright notices to every source code file is also pointless, since copyright notices are no longer required to obtain copyright protection.
It might help to prove intent when somebody does violate a license (they cannot say "oh wow this was copyrighted? i totally didn't know!")
I don't think that follows naturally.
The default if code does not have any notice anywhere is that it is copyrighted, and no license is given to anyone to use it, so any use of it is a violation.
At least in the US, all creative works are copyrighted by default (such as this comment, which does not include a notice of such, but is copyrighted).
Because of that, the default assumption of anyone would be that anything is copyrighted and cannot be used for any purpose outside of fair use unless there is a specific license granting additional usage.
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#28The court transcript of a copyright lawsuit would be hilarious: --What is the copyright content? Nothing . --Are you saying that that you have no copyright? No --Okay, can you then give me a summary of the content? It's nothing And so on.
I'm sure expert witness Bud Abbott could clear this all up for them.
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#29Companies have to vigorously protect their intellectual property and copyright of source regardless. If they fail in one instance to assert those then it can badly impact them when it matters.
This is false in the United States. Failure to assert copyright does not relinquish it. Trademark does, however, because it is connected to brand recognition concepts.
Reminds me of a CEO I used to work for who realized that old blog articles (which no-one was reading anyway) were copyrighted of the years they were written, and made a fuss that "no-one is paying attention, these details are important for our image, we need to show that we're up to date". There was no explaining him that this is not how copyright works, what's important was that we remind people of the current year.
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#30/bin/true is backwards then since 0 usually means false
> Zero is used to represent false, and One is used to represent true. For interpretation, Zero is interpreted as false and anything non-zero is interpreted as true.