I just wonder ... isn't "All Rights Reserved." the opposite of the
open source licence Scala is released under?
I wonder if it is possible to either
a) add a clarification to that line,
b) modify it, if the code was properly donated or
c) stop pirating, if there is no actual licence.
Thanks and bye!
"Clarify usage of Google copyright in xml sourcecode"
I agree it should go. Even if there is some legitimate reason for it to
be there, it's not nearly valuable enough to compensate for planting
seeds of license doubt in anyone who happens to notice it.
Thanks! Guess I should have checked trac before writing a mail ...
The copyright holder can reserve the rights to themselves and
simultaneously specify a license governing acceptable uses.
> I wonder if it is possible to either
> a) add a clarification to that line,
> b) modify it, if the code was properly donated or
> c) stop pirating, if there is no actual licence.
> Thanks and bye!
If it's even one tenth as scary a situation as you make it sound, my
preferred approach would be not to touch the copyright in any way, and
nuke any files containing those characters from orbit. I should do more
of that anyway, copyright issue or no.
Jeez, we're talking about MetaData extends Iterable[MetaData] here, this
is not exactly the stuff of industrial espionage.
We are in talks with Google concerning the matter, and have been for
quite a while, so it's not something we have forgotten about.
At this time, a slightly modified version of the Scala CLA is under the
scrutiny of Google's lawyers, and we are waiting to hear from them for
their final approval. The last email exchange took place three weeks ago.
The matter is currently being dealt with in the best manner, therefore,
and in a very friendly way. There is no need for concern.