[openbeos] Re: Ticket #1222

  • From: "Waldemar Kornewald" <wkornewald@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 21:32:57 +0200

Hi Matt,

On 5/19/07, Matt Madia <mattmadia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A few days ago  i started working on
http://dev.haiku-os.org/ticket/1222   ,  "check if
AboutHaiku lists an acknowledgment for all packages"


 The credits for advertising materials seems to contain text that would also
be appropriate for AboutHaiku.

Hmm, I don't think that AboutHaiku is advertising material, but if you
just want to use that as a template when acknowledgment is needed,
then why not.

As far as I can tell, there is no specific requirement to include the text
in AboutHaiku.

AFAIK, some libraries require a user-visible acknowledgment in the
binary application's "About" dialog, so in those cases we'd have to
add them to AboutHaiku. Complete licenses should better have a
separate file, though.

An entire directory of individual text files of copyright notices.
I'm not certain about the ideal hierarchy and nomenclature
eg,  legal/NetBSD.copyright ,  NetBSD.disclaimer,   NewOS.copyright,
NewOS.disclaimer,  LGPL.copyright, LGPL.disclaimer
eg,  legal/NetBSD/copyright,  disclaimer    legal/LGPL/Copying,

I think we just need a folder where all those files can be put. No
need to create a complete hierarchy since you probably won't have lots
of files per license, anyway.

Both copyrights are NetBSD and differ in the acknowledgment quote.
 *      This product includes software developed by the NetBSD
 *      Foundation, Inc. and its contributors.
 *      This product includes software developed by Christopher G. Demetriou
 *      for the NetBSD Project.
In this type of case, are we allowed the freedom to condense the latter
quote into "and its contributors." of the first?

Unfortunately, I don't know. I'm no lawyer. I'd rather be on the safe side.

Across multiple files, there may also be versions of the license that
differs in the clauses.
--currently i cannot re-locate examples of this.
--but imagine lib/src1 has a NetBSD license with clauses 1,3, and 4  and
lib/src2 with a NetBSD license with clauses 1,2,3 and 4.

Would i need to reproduce each copyright notice individually or simply
reproduce the one with more clauses?

Since all those files have different copyrights I think you'd have to
reproduce all of them.

On a similar note, some groups use the same copyright notice for multiple
Aside from that, the copyrights notices are exact duplicates.
eg,  lib/src4  has Copyright (c)  1997   ,lib/src5 has   Copyright (c)  1998
   , lib/src6 has Copyright (c) 2001

How would this situation be handled?
reproduce the earliest date,   the most recent, or create a custom "Multiple
Copyright (c) through the years 1997 - 2001"

If these are source files of different libraries and all of them
require acknowledgments then I think you need to create a separate
copyright statement for each library. If it's only one library I'd say
it's OK to just use the earliest date (or the one that comes with the
license file?).

Waldemar Kornewald

Other related posts: