> However, you wouldn't have copyright to the final code > itself if it was too bound up with the original code to separate your contributions > and you didn't have authorization to modify it as you did.
You would own the copyright of any copyrightable changes you made, no matter whether you had authorization to modify it. Of course you wouldn't have copyright over the entire file, but the original copyright holder wouldn't own the copyright over the entire file either.
> I'm not sure exactly what it means legally to put your name at the top of a MAME > source code file as a copyright holder, but I wouldn't have thought of it as > referring solely to some set of changes that couldn't even be described simply by > looking at the file itself.
I don't get what you're saying, too many double negatives going on there.
> If MAMEdev wants to relicense code that Haze contributed > to, perhaps they can come up with a statement he would be comfortable making. For > example:
Haze has made it clear that he won't ever relicense code that he wrote, so coming up with a statement for him is pointless.
Index 
Flat 
Re: Update
Reply
Re: and what's really sad
