Hacker Read

logn · 2014-12-20 21:38:15+00:00

blaix | karma 103 | avg karma 1.17 · | 2010-04-04 10:52:39

If there is no notice you can assume it is copyrighted. Because unless explicitly stated otherwise, it is.

layoutIfNeeded | karma 698 | avg karma 0.63 · | 2021-03-29 21:45:50

That’s the copyright notice.

partycoder | karma 2332 | avg karma 0.95 · | 2017-10-15 22:59:23

And there's the copyright notice in the footer as well.

danielweber | karma 12245 | avg karma 2.65 · | 2014-07-24 16:44:06+00:00

Maybe the post has been edited but I don't see anything about Copyright at the page.

andreareina | karma 4966 | avg karma 2.57 · | 2022-01-01 05:42:42

A copyright notice doesn't get copyright protection, so no.

chc | karma 20862 | avg karma 3.0 · | 2011-07-12 15:21:23

As noted in other comments, this notice does not even mention copyright, so that law is irrelevant.

emmelaich | karma 6824 | avg karma 1.64 · | 2021-10-04 18:51:20

(2014) - according to the copyright notice.

kevin_thibedeau | karma 19088 | avg karma 2.16 · | 2022-05-15 11:27:15

This isn't a creative work so the applicability of copyright is dubious.

anon4 | karma 1880 | avg karma 1.35 · | 2014-06-16 12:51:59+00:00

Shouldn't this still be under copyright?

nkassis | karma 4550 | avg karma 2.8 · | 2011-09-03 13:15:28

doesn't really explain much. One of the comment claims it's not copyrighted but why?

binarycrusader | karma 3329 | avg karma 3.02 · | 2012-04-17 17:39:04+00:00

No license or copyright stated. Doh!

(Which technically means we don't have permission to do anything with the source at all, though I doubt that's what Jordan intended.)

reply

pavlov | karma 46014 | avg karma 6.7 · | 2012-11-17 13:07:55+00:00

FYI: that's a copyright violation because the original source doesn't carry a license that would allow it to be modified and reproduced.

TingPing | karma 536 | avg karma 1.44 · | 2021-07-08 15:28:45+00:00

So copyright doesn't apply unless copyright applies.

indolering | karma 1064 | avg karma 2.92 · | 2017-07-11 21:28:56

Nope, it's not a violation of copyright.

mixedCase | karma 4317 | avg karma 2.74 · | 2021-12-17 15:17:44

I believe the parent poster implicitly meant "as long as it's copyrightable" as a caveat

klapinat0r | karma 528 | avg karma 2.38 · | 2012-06-15 21:16:38+00:00

Right, but it doesn't mean it's copyrighted either.

phone8675309 | karma 1703 | avg karma 1.55 · | 2024-04-05 14:21:28

I believe that copyright notice is for organizing the layout of the actual distribution images (ISO, etc) and for the music and artwork (though work-for-hire), not that Theo de Raadt is claiming copyright over all of the code in the distribution.

true_religion | karma 6837 | avg karma 1.74 · | 2016-02-03 10:39:20

I don't think they're claiming copyright; that's just a boilerplate statement alluding to the fact that just because you see it here on the public internet doesn't mean you shouldn't do your own research to find out whom if anyone has copyright.

Polylactic_acid | karma 3296 | avg karma 3.03 · | 2020-04-02 02:19:29+00:00

The header likely does not contain enough creative content to even be covered by copyright.