On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 03:45, Jacek Caban wrote:
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
- Copyright 1999 Ulrich Czekalla for Corel Corporation
- Copyright 2002 Huw D M Davies for CodeWeavers
- Copyright 2005 Jacek Caban for CodeWeavers
- This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
- modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
Merely removing unused code does not give you any copyright in the file. On related matters, neither does fixing trivial bugs - there must be some substantial additional expression introduced to a file in order to give rise to a copyright claim. "Substantial" in this case means having expressive substance rather than referring to the size of the change.
Most of the code you have removed has been intentionally left in because the implementation is still incomplete, but the routines you have removed are there for whoever eventually completes the implementation to build on.
I am also not sure why you think the INTERNET_SCHEME_FILE case is unused.
Troy Rollo wrote:
Merely removing unused code does not give you any copyright in the file. On related matters, neither does fixing trivial bugs - there must be some substantial additional expression introduced to a file in order to give rise to a copyright claim. "Substantial" in this case means having expressive substance rather than referring to the size of the change.
Most of the code you have removed has been intentionally left in because the implementation is still incomplete, but the routines you have removed are there for whoever eventually completes the implementation to build on.
I am also not sure why you think the INTERNET_SCHEME_FILE case is unused.
Please, look at the code and changelog before witting such things. I just didn't add copyright in patches I have sent previously (and now I sent a part of changes I have in my tree and they included copyright header). INTERNET_SCHEME_FILE is not used because I've implemented it in a correct way. I really don't care much if I am in the copyright header or not.
Jacek