Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
PO
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>There are Eclipse plugins for adding / maintaining copyright notices in source file headers; e.g. see this SO question: <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/204676/how-to-manage-license-banners-in-source-files-of-eclipse-plug-in-projects">How to manage license banners in source files of Eclipse plug-in projects</a>. (The answers are more general than the question ...)</p> <p>With a Maven project you can / should also add license details to the POM file.</p> <hr> <p>From a purely legal perspective, it probably doesn't matter if a file gets separated from the "bundle" containing the copyright notice. Copyright applies irrespective of whether there is a copyright notice.</p> <blockquote> <p>I agree that copyright applies irrespective, but authorship and licenses do not. So in an area where software is likely to be re-used we need to give the re-users that information.</p> </blockquote> <p>Both authorship and licensing <em>also</em> apply irrespective of whether this is stated in each file. </p> <ul> <li><p>Authorship is simply a fact, "William Stallings wrote Emacs" remains true even if someone strips the source headers. But knowing who the author of some piece of software is has no bearing over how someone else may use it, so it probably isn't of much relevance.</p></li> <li><p>Licenses derive from copyright, and the default license is as set out in the relevant copyright law. That is, the default is that you do NOT have the right to make a copy, or have a copy that was made illegally. </p> <p>If a file becomes separated from the license information, then it is up to the user of the file to deal with the problem; i.e. HE needs to find out what the license is. Because, the default is that he has no license.</p></li> </ul> <p>Basically, if the copyright and/or license are unclear, the obligation is on the copier to find out what the copyright / license status is ... not the copyright owner / licensor. And that is as it should be. It is not possible for the copyright owner / licensor to PREVENT the information from BECOMING separated, and penalizing the copyright holder / licensor for something (illegal) that someone else did to achieve that separation would be manifestly unfair.</p>
    singulars
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. POHow should I add licence information to maven project and its source files
      singulars
      1. PTQuestion
    1. PTAnswer
    1. USCommunity
    1. USStephen C
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    1. COThanks. I agree that copyright applies irrespective, but authorship and licenses do not. So in an area where software is likely to be re-used we need to give the re-users that information
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USpeter.murray.rust
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload