Re: [site] Copyright dates

[sebb <se...@gmail.com>]

On 31/05/06, Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 31 May 2006, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 31 May 2006, Martin Cooper wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/31/06, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I updated the stylesheet to change the Copyright statement from
> >>> 1999-2005 to 1999-2006 a week or so ago.
> >>>
> >>> Of course this changes all the generated HTML pages.
> >>>
> >>> I've not yet updated them, as I wanted to double-check if this was
> >>> needed or not (the stylesheet could be changed back).
> >>>
> >>> OR: would it be better to just change the copyright in files that have
> >>> been updated this year?
> >>
> >>
> >> s/better/required/g.
> >>
> >> In other words, the copyright years in a file must include only the years
> >> in
> >> which that file was modified.
> >
> > Not sure if it's required for the sites. I suspect the concept of templating
> > is perfectly acceptable and the copyright can be considered to refer to the
> > whole site and not just the page in question.
> >
> > Worth a legal-discuss question.
>
> As he IM'd me, I took the liberty of unleashing this question on Cliff.
> You'll be surprised by the result of the conversation - drop the copyright
> from the footer and just update the copyright on the legal info page.
>
> Sounds good to me. Less to maintain.

+1

> All that having the copyright on each page does is provide a defense
> against an "innocent infringement defence" - which apparantly means when
> someone says they didn't know they were doing wrong. Not keeping the
> copyright up to date means that it'll expire in 93 years not 95, so not
> even a huge deal to worry about keeping it up to date.
>
> How does that sound?
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: [site] Copyright dates

[Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Martin Cooper wrote:

> I think it would be worth asking whether or not a "copyright" notice without
> specified years is actually meaningful. My expectation is that it would not
> - i.e. that it would not imbue the pages with copyright protection at all.
>
> I guess the first question is: Do we care about our pages being copyrighted?
> I would expect that we do, in which case I believe we should make people
> aware of that. If we take the attitude that the copyright applies to the
> site and not to the individual pages, then I guess we could go back to what
> sebb was talking about in the first place, and use a boilerplate copyright
> on each page.

Mebbe we should bring it up on legal-discuss. The irritating thing with 
not being able to do boilerplate is that every site out there does 
boilerplate, from Slashdot to Microsoft to the BBC.

That way we can help get an ASF policy rather than just how we do things. 
We're the only project I've found so far who have a link from the 
copyright to a terms of use/legal info page, and I suspect that every ASF 
project uses boilerplate updating at the moment.

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: [site] Copyright dates

[sebb <se...@gmail.com>]

On 01/06/06, Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net> wrote:
> Martin Cooper wrote:
>
> > I think it would be worth asking whether or not a "copyright" notice
> > without
> > specified years is actually meaningful. My expectation is that it would not
> > - i.e. that it would not imbue the pages with copyright protection at all.
>
> My expectation is that copyright protection applies simply because
> we own the copyright, not because of some notice being in the page.
> The notice is just to make people aware of the fact.

+1

> But copyright is different from the USA here in Germany.
>

And in the UK probably too, but IANAL...

===

I'm going to revert the stylesheet back to 2005, and update the legal
page to 2006.

This will reduce the number of pages that are updated - until such
time as this discussion is resolved...

s///
(or perhaps I should sign off as s\\\ this time!)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: [site] Copyright dates

[Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net>]

Martin Cooper wrote:

> I think it would be worth asking whether or not a "copyright" notice
> without
> specified years is actually meaningful. My expectation is that it would not
> - i.e. that it would not imbue the pages with copyright protection at all.

My expectation is that copyright protection applies simply because
we own the copyright, not because of some notice being in the page.
The notice is just to make people aware of the fact.

But copyright is different from the USA here in Germany.

cheers,
  Roland

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: [site] Copyright dates

[Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>]

On 6/1/06, Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, sebb wrote:
>
> > At present, all the pages contain the footer:
> >
> > Copyright (c) 1999-2005, The Apache Software Foundation. _Legal
> information_
> >
> > where _Legal information_ is a link to the legal page (which
> > definitely needs updating to 2006!)
> >
> > IIUC, the new footer would just be:
> >
> > _Legal information_
> >
> > Is that correct?
> >
> > Or would it be better to have:
> >
> > Copyright (c) The Apache Software Foundation. _Legal information_
> >
> > i.e. remove just the dates from all footers.
>
> That sounds good - I'm pretty sure it's not going to be bad to do that and
> change it later. Not having the first part will seem quite out of context.


I think it would be worth asking whether or not a "copyright" notice without
specified years is actually meaningful. My expectation is that it would not
- i.e. that it would not imbue the pages with copyright protection at all.

I guess the first question is: Do we care about our pages being copyrighted?
I would expect that we do, in which case I believe we should make people
aware of that. If we take the attitude that the copyright applies to the
site and not to the individual pages, then I guess we could go back to what
sebb was talking about in the first place, and use a boilerplate copyright
on each page.

--
Martin Cooper


Once it's changed, I'll ping Cliff for confirmation.
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

Re: [site] Copyright dates

[Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, sebb wrote:

> At present, all the pages contain the footer:
>
> Copyright (c) 1999-2005, The Apache Software Foundation. _Legal information_
>
> where _Legal information_ is a link to the legal page (which
> definitely needs updating to 2006!)
>
> IIUC, the new footer would just be:
>
> _Legal information_
>
> Is that correct?
>
> Or would it be better to have:
>
> Copyright (c) The Apache Software Foundation. _Legal information_
>
> i.e. remove just the dates from all footers.

That sounds good - I'm pretty sure it's not going to be bad to do that and 
change it later. Not having the first part will seem quite out of context.

Once it's changed, I'll ping Cliff for confirmation.

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: [site] Copyright dates

[sebb <se...@gmail.com>]

On 31/05/06, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/05/06, Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 31 May 2006, Henri Yandell wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 31 May 2006, Martin Cooper wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 5/31/06, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I updated the stylesheet to change the Copyright statement from
> > >>> 1999-2005 to 1999-2006 a week or so ago.
> > >>>
> > >>> Of course this changes all the generated HTML pages.
> > >>>
> > >>> I've not yet updated them, as I wanted to double-check if this was
> > >>> needed or not (the stylesheet could be changed back).
> > >>>
> > >>> OR: would it be better to just change the copyright in files that have
> > >>> been updated this year?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> s/better/required/g.
> > >>
> > >> In other words, the copyright years in a file must include only the years
> > >> in
> > >> which that file was modified.
> > >
> > > Not sure if it's required for the sites. I suspect the concept of templating
> > > is perfectly acceptable and the copyright can be considered to refer to the
> > > whole site and not just the page in question.
> > >
> > > Worth a legal-discuss question.
> >
> > As he IM'd me, I took the liberty of unleashing this question on Cliff.
> > You'll be surprised by the result of the conversation - drop the copyright
> > from the footer and just update the copyright on the legal info page.
> >
> > Sounds good to me. Less to maintain.
>
> +1
>
> > All that having the copyright on each page does is provide a defense
> > against an "innocent infringement defence" - which apparantly means when
> > someone says they didn't know they were doing wrong. Not keeping the
> > copyright up to date means that it'll expire in 93 years not 95, so not
> > even a huge deal to worry about keeping it up to date.
> >
> > How does that sound?
> >
>

At present, all the pages contain the footer:

Copyright (c) 1999-2005, The Apache Software Foundation. _Legal information_

where _Legal information_ is a link to the legal page (which
definitely needs updating to 2006!)

IIUC, the new footer would just be:

_Legal information_

Is that correct?

Or would it be better to have:

Copyright (c) The Apache Software Foundation. _Legal information_

i.e. remove just the dates from all footers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org