2008.11.01 07:10 "[Tiff] example of (standalone) TIFFRegisterCODEC", by Brad Hards

2008.12.13 19:12 "Re: [Tiff] example of (standalone) TIFFRegisterCODEC", by Gene Amtower


You comment is important, as the first paragraph suggests that these copyright notices SHOULD be included in all libtiff code. It's not explicit about when it applies and when it does not.

So, if this is no longer the case or doesn't apply in all sections of the libtiff code, then a note should be added to any sections of code that DO still require it to clarify to developers when it must be left in place and when it should not be included. An update of code comments to remove it wherever it doesn't apply is equally important to avoid perpetuating it throughout the library and utilities. If I copy code from one part of the library into another section, and then perform a modification, does this copyright notice apply or not? I don't think the lines of code themselves provide any clues about what Sam contributed and what he did not.

I guess that's part of the problem with these types of license comments within open-source code because they live on forever in the code until somebody with the right insight knows it's time to remove them.

Thanks again for your observation.


On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 10:35 -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:


  • Copyright (c) 1988-1997 Sam Leffler
  • Copyright (c) 1991-1997 Silicon Graphics, Inc.

This is a bit off topic, but we *really* need to stop perpetuating this wrong copyright statement. Sam Leffler and Silicon Graphics are not responsible for code that they didn't write. We don't have permission from them to apply these copyright lines on new work and it would be senseless to do so. The copyright lines can only apply to work actually created by these parties.