comp.os.os2.programmer.misc:2138   
   From: what.ever@neverm.ind (A.D. Fundum)   
      
    > Opening a GPLed file randomly I see the second line is   
    > "Copyright (c) 2003 and a name.   
      
   Exactly! I'm glad I never denied nor ignored that. But just the opened   
   file ITSELF is (c) by some foundation I've never had any relationship   
   with at all.   
      
    > A couple of lines later is some permissions to redistribute and/or   
    > modify.   
      
   In English again, so I can consider it to not exist? Stated by some   
   foreign, irrelevant foundation I've no relationship with at all.    
      
    > Seems they go hand in hand.   
       
   Seems! One of the "making things up"-parts. If you reread a "random"   
   GPL.TXT (I'm not sure why you read it in the first place), you'll be   
   able to read it refers, as such, to "this license document". I.e. not   
   your intellectual property, which you probably never donated to some   
   foundation.   
      
   FTR: you're not making up things, you're making the mistake that the   
   (c) in the GPL.TXT is related to the package it came with. It isn't.   
   It's bogus.   
      
   Whatever: according to your Berne agreement, there may not be a valid   
   license. If so, it's considered to be (c). Which is very superfluous,   
   because it already was (c) in a realistic worst-case scenario.   
      
    > Personally I try to respect the authours wishes   
       
   Exactly, again! And agreed. But why are you respecting the author of   
   a license, just sharing that license document? I respect your efforts   
   far, far more than that lame, worthless attempt of some foundation.   
      
   Please distinguish between e.g. the (c) of your software and the (c)   
   of not more than some piece of (extremely irrelevant) text.   
      
   I really hope you reread your GPL. Ignore it's in English, and spot   
   the hand in hand-going relationship between its (c)-claim and its   
   "this document". It's as official as an impressive pile of Bills. It   
   really, really is. IOW: they don't own the package it came with, just   
   like an 'ol BBS_CALL.ME-like file is third-party bogus.   
      
   Maybe the smartest thing is to delete it in this case (the IFS, not   
   written by some anything-but-free software foundation), because you   
   don't agree with it. Problem solved, you're no longer distributing the   
   (c) document of some foundation that may be causing you problems. Or   
   you think might cause problems.   
      
   And yes, the documents of the Free Software Foundation are (c) by the   
   Free Software Foundation. Outside English-speaking areas they actually   
   are stealling your properties, because we honestly don't understand a   
   "this document". And what about a situation that we find both a "(c)   
   Dave Yeo 2011" and "(c) Silly Foundation 2007"? Two owners. What is   
   the percentage of ownership they "allowed" you? Or is it some virus?   
   Once you have it, you may no longer e.g. remove it? Funny.   
      
      
   --   
      
   --- Internet Rex 2.31   
    * Origin: News-Service.com (1:261/20.999)