Re: setup.exe copyright?

["Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g.r.vansickle@worldnet.att.net>
> > Seriously though, I think the main point of the (c) message there is
to
> > give folk an idea about where to go to find out more.
> >
>
> Speaking of which (seriously), at some point I'll probably make that
URL on
> there clickable unless somebody wants to beat me to it (or it ends up
being a
> collossal PITA for some reason).

That would be quite neat.

> The one and only concern I have is the same one you and Chris do - if
it isn't
> 100% copyright Red Hat, should it be saying that it is?  I think
something along
> the lines of your "Portions (c)..."  or something is the right idea.
I don't
> know; how do other GPLed projects which drink from many wells handle
this?

No idea. Chris, can Red Hat's legal group make comment? I'm happy with
it staying as it is, or with making any reasonable change...



> However, I have an even better idea, and this kills two birds with one
> proverbial stone: fade pictures of our ugly mugs in there, one after
the other
> (or maybe morph them).  Art meets ego meets spamproofness until that
> face-recognition technology they used at the superbowl becomes
available to
> spammers in the next year or so.

There is a step beyond... rather than a copyright assignment, we can
require mugshots :].

Rob