Copyright Notice and Contributors about cuckoo HOT 2 CLOSED

Generally speaking I (and also the other developers) don't really care about these kinds of matters and discussions, because they are pointless unless something bad happens, and that would most likely not happen between the developers, but with some third party.
Not to mention that the OSS licensing is a jungle and I don't really want to dive into an endless discussion on details irrelevant to us.

Regarding the HTML report, it was more of a typo than a real statement, that's gonna be fixed.

Regarding the copyright notice in the source files, it's required in the GPL license and, as you certainly know, the copyright holder should be an individual or a legal entity. Therefore, until we'll have a Cuckoo Foundation or something, it remains as it is.
All the contributors are credited both in the user guide as well as in the AUTHORS file.
The copyright ownership exists and (as explained here http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/30/64) since Cuckoo is the case of a sole developer joined by contributors after first release, the ownership of the underlying code is retained by the creator. There are parts of Cuckoo which are original code of some contributors, and in those cases the underlying copyright ownership is retained by the contributor (e.g. chide and chook which are copyrighted by Dario).
As GNU FAQ states (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html) there is no need for contributors to claim copyright over the changes, as it is done by default when they publish and commit code to a public source (being GitHub in this case).

That said I hope I clarified the situation and if you have any more concerns, I ask you to address them by email or on IRC as we'd like to keep the Issues tracking for real issues, being bug reports and feature requests.

from cuckoo.

I agree with Claudio - the copyright and licensing headers are mandatory and thus won't disappear and so you still have the "gazillion counts of the name of the author" in the code. It is not "everywhere" though, but rather in the headers of the files.

As Claudio said, the "property of" was more a typo and can be exchanged for the correct copyright statement.

I guess nobody thinks that Claudio will neglect giving credit where credit is due or is somehow not willing to release his code as open source so I don't know why you bring up the dual licensing part.

All in all I am not too familiar with different licensing schemes and again, it is very complex :) - let's keep it simple where we can. Maybe someone (you?) wants to write a VI configuration for hiding the licensing blob headers automatically?

from cuckoo.