Re: Xaraya2x actions to come

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> I would like to put the burden of proof on the DDF. If someone can show
> that the organization is a legally existing entity in good standing then
> we can discuss putting the copyright line back in. It certainly doesn't
> appear to meet any reasonable criteria as a going concern as far as I
> can see. As the single remaining representative of the DDF, I believe
> that would fall to you.

That is not how copyright works. *You* must make a case for removing the notice.
Or better still, don't remove it.

> ...
> So please don't read any nefarious intent into this. There isn't. Quite
> the contrary: if the project wants to move forward it needs to free
> itself from some of the useless baggage from the past. Nothing has been
> done about the DDF situation for years. This is something. If you
> disagree please make a case for why that line should remain.

Copyright notices are far from useless baggage. I can only assume you have
misunderstood how they work, because I have always been led to believe you never
*ever* remove copyright notices from any source without first getting permission
of the copyright holder, or demonstrating that the code is now so far removed
from the original that it is considered a new published work.

-- Jason