You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> on 2016/10/01 02:28:54 UTC
Re: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the project
First I've seen of that approach.
Anything you can cite Manfred?
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Edward Ribeiro <ed...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Cool. Do you know if it is *required* to use 'Copyright 2008-Present' in
> the docs or can we just let it as 'Copyright 2008'?
>
> There has been a lot of inconclusive -- i.e., without legal background --
> discussions among the project members, because it makes maintenance easier
> if we don't have to keep updating the year (there are more than a handful
> of docs in the project). So, some contributors just suggested make it 2008
> and not worry about changing it. I am leaning towards following the
> 'Copyright 2008-Present', but don't know if this is really required for
> docs.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Manfred Moser <ma...@simpligility.com>
> wrote:
>
>> From what I understand it is legal to use
>> Copyright 2008-Present
>>
>>
>>
>> Edward Ribeiro wrote on 2016-09-30 15:34:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I looked for an answer to my question in the legal-discuss mailing list
>> archives, but didn't find any message directly addressing it. Sorry, if I
>> missed any message or faq.
>>
>> Well, we have an Apache project where a set of docs (html, xml, and pdf)
>> have copyright notice as below:
>>
>> Copyright 2008-2013
>>
>> Those docs are distributed as part of the project. Excuse me, I know this
>> has been asked many times when it comes to source code, but the copyright
>> notice of documentation also needs to be updated to the current year?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Eddie
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To
>> unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional
>> commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
>
Re: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the project
Posted by Edward Ribeiro <ed...@gmail.com>.
Thanks everybody for the insightful suggestions and links. It helped a lot.
Cheers,
Eddie
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org> wrote:
> I like this approach of dropping the year and relying on the source
> history, it simplifies things for us in ZooKeeper. If it is acceptable, I
> suggest we use it.
>
> -Flavio
>
> On 01 Oct 2016, at 20:25, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Or even drop the year.
>
> Just saying "Copyright <Entity>" and then a FAQ that says "How do we
> determine the year of copyright? Use the source control - we are a public
> foundation and the source history is open to all. "
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
>
>> There seems to be a misunderstanding about what the copyright dates
>> signify. If a document has not changed since 2008, then there is nothing
>> to change in a Copyright (c) 2008 notice because there is no newer content,
>> and no matter what gets put in the notice, the term of the copyright does
>> not increase (except by changes in the copyright law, such as the term
>> extension created to protect Walt Disney copyrights).
>>
>> I notice that book publishers have gone to just using the date of the
>> latest content and not the multiple dates of publication in successive
>> editions of some works. (Check recent latest editions of The Art of
>> Computer Programming volumes).
>>
>> Since the ASF recommends not putting ASF notices on individual files and
>> simply providing the ALv2 license notification, exactly why/where is it so
>> important to keep updating copyright notices in many places? And do the
>> additional dates genuinely reflect presence of additional/modified content
>> subject to copyright? Doing this as a rubber-stamp exercise is probably
>> harmless but it is not clear what it accomplishes where the content subject
>> to copyright has not changed.
>>
>> -- dennis
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
>> > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 21:34
>> > To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the
>> > project
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > > However, since when you contribute to ASF projects you license your
>> > > code to the Foundation, the Foundation feels that this:
>> > > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple
>> > > is the minimum amount of protection it needs.
>> >
>> > If may also depend if the documentation is bundled in a release or not
>> > or just displayed on a web site. [1]
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Justin
>> >
>> >
>> > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-webpages
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the project
Posted by Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org>.
I like this approach of dropping the year and relying on the source history, it simplifies things for us in ZooKeeper. If it is acceptable, I suggest we use it.
-Flavio
> On 01 Oct 2016, at 20:25, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Or even drop the year.
>
> Just saying "Copyright <Entity>" and then a FAQ that says "How do we determine the year of copyright? Use the source control - we are a public foundation and the source history is open to all. "
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org <ma...@acm.org>> wrote:
> There seems to be a misunderstanding about what the copyright dates signify. If a document has not changed since 2008, then there is nothing to change in a Copyright (c) 2008 notice because there is no newer content, and no matter what gets put in the notice, the term of the copyright does not increase (except by changes in the copyright law, such as the term extension created to protect Walt Disney copyrights).
>
> I notice that book publishers have gone to just using the date of the latest content and not the multiple dates of publication in successive editions of some works. (Check recent latest editions of The Art of Computer Programming volumes).
>
> Since the ASF recommends not putting ASF notices on individual files and simply providing the ALv2 license notification, exactly why/where is it so important to keep updating copyright notices in many places? And do the additional dates genuinely reflect presence of additional/modified content subject to copyright? Doing this as a rubber-stamp exercise is probably harmless but it is not clear what it accomplishes where the content subject to copyright has not changed.
>
> -- dennis
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com <ma...@classsoftware.com>]
> > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 21:34
> > To: legal-discuss@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the
> > project
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > However, since when you contribute to ASF projects you license your
> > > code to the Foundation, the Foundation feels that this:
> > > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple <http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple>
> > > is the minimum amount of protection it needs.
> >
> > If may also depend if the documentation is bundled in a release or not
> > or just displayed on a web site. [1]
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> >
> > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-webpages <https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-webpages>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>
>
Re: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the project
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
It does not matter if the file still says 2012. If you end up in a court of
law, they're going to ignore whatever was placed into the file, and look at
the evidence of creation/changes/etc.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Thanks Roy,
>
> I noticed the US code says "year of first publication". So if I first
> ship Apache Foo 0.5 in 2012, I would use 2012 in the copyright notice in
> NOTICE, but if I ship Apache Foo 0.6 in 2013, is Apache Foo 0.6 a "first
> publication" or a "derivative work incorporating previously published
> material" so isn't a big deal if the copyright year still says 2012?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 10/5/16, 1:09 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 1, 2016, at 12:25 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Or even drop the year.
> >>
> >> Just saying "Copyright <Entity>" and then a FAQ that says "How do we
> >>determine the year of copyright? Use the source control - we are a
> >>public foundation and the source history is open to all. "
> >
> >A valid copyright notice is defined by law. The law doesn't allow
> >redirects,
> >year-ranges, nor fantasies like 2008-present.
> >
> >In the US, that would be 17 U.S. Code § 401 (b)
> >
> > https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/401
> >
> >However, a valid notice isn't required if the owner doesn't care about
> >suing for damages on infringement, which is one of many reasons why
> >we no longer place a copyright notice on individual files.
> >
> >....Roy
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
>
Re: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the project
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Thanks Roy,
I noticed the US code says "year of first publication". So if I first
ship Apache Foo 0.5 in 2012, I would use 2012 in the copyright notice in
NOTICE, but if I ship Apache Foo 0.6 in 2013, is Apache Foo 0.6 a "first
publication" or a "derivative work incorporating previously published
material" so isn't a big deal if the copyright year still says 2012?
Thanks,
-Alex
On 10/5/16, 1:09 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 2016, at 12:25 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Or even drop the year.
>>
>> Just saying "Copyright <Entity>" and then a FAQ that says "How do we
>>determine the year of copyright? Use the source control - we are a
>>public foundation and the source history is open to all. "
>
>A valid copyright notice is defined by law. The law doesn't allow
>redirects,
>year-ranges, nor fantasies like 2008-present.
>
>In the US, that would be 17 U.S. Code § 401 (b)
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/401
>
>However, a valid notice isn't required if the owner doesn't care about
>suing for damages on infringement, which is one of many reasons why
>we no longer place a copyright notice on individual files.
>
>....Roy
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Re: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the project
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
> On Oct 1, 2016, at 12:25 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Or even drop the year.
>
> Just saying "Copyright <Entity>" and then a FAQ that says "How do we determine the year of copyright? Use the source control - we are a public foundation and the source history is open to all. "
A valid copyright notice is defined by law. The law doesn't allow redirects,
year-ranges, nor fantasies like 2008-present.
In the US, that would be 17 U.S. Code § 401 (b)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/401
However, a valid notice isn't required if the owner doesn't care about
suing for damages on infringement, which is one of many reasons why
we no longer place a copyright notice on individual files.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the project
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Or even drop the year.
Just saying "Copyright <Entity>" and then a FAQ that says "How do we
determine the year of copyright? Use the source control - we are a public
foundation and the source history is open to all. "
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org>
wrote:
> There seems to be a misunderstanding about what the copyright dates
> signify. If a document has not changed since 2008, then there is nothing
> to change in a Copyright (c) 2008 notice because there is no newer content,
> and no matter what gets put in the notice, the term of the copyright does
> not increase (except by changes in the copyright law, such as the term
> extension created to protect Walt Disney copyrights).
>
> I notice that book publishers have gone to just using the date of the
> latest content and not the multiple dates of publication in successive
> editions of some works. (Check recent latest editions of The Art of
> Computer Programming volumes).
>
> Since the ASF recommends not putting ASF notices on individual files and
> simply providing the ALv2 license notification, exactly why/where is it so
> important to keep updating copyright notices in many places? And do the
> additional dates genuinely reflect presence of additional/modified content
> subject to copyright? Doing this as a rubber-stamp exercise is probably
> harmless but it is not clear what it accomplishes where the content subject
> to copyright has not changed.
>
> -- dennis
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 21:34
> > To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the
> > project
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > However, since when you contribute to ASF projects you license your
> > > code to the Foundation, the Foundation feels that this:
> > > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple
> > > is the minimum amount of protection it needs.
> >
> > If may also depend if the documentation is bundled in a release or not
> > or just displayed on a web site. [1]
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> >
> > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-webpages
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
RE: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the project
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
There seems to be a misunderstanding about what the copyright dates signify. If a document has not changed since 2008, then there is nothing to change in a Copyright (c) 2008 notice because there is no newer content, and no matter what gets put in the notice, the term of the copyright does not increase (except by changes in the copyright law, such as the term extension created to protect Walt Disney copyrights).
I notice that book publishers have gone to just using the date of the latest content and not the multiple dates of publication in successive editions of some works. (Check recent latest editions of The Art of Computer Programming volumes).
Since the ASF recommends not putting ASF notices on individual files and simply providing the ALv2 license notification, exactly why/where is it so important to keep updating copyright notices in many places? And do the additional dates genuinely reflect presence of additional/modified content subject to copyright? Doing this as a rubber-stamp exercise is probably harmless but it is not clear what it accomplishes where the content subject to copyright has not changed.
-- dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 21:34
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the
> project
>
> Hi,
>
> > However, since when you contribute to ASF projects you license your
> > code to the Foundation, the Foundation feels that this:
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple
> > is the minimum amount of protection it needs.
>
> If may also depend if the documentation is bundled in a release or not
> or just displayed on a web site. [1]
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
> 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-webpages
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the project
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
I'd think we'd want to protect docs in a zip and on a site equally. How we
represent that protection may vary.
Apologies if that was your point.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > However, since when you contribute to ASF projects you license your
> > code to the Foundation, the Foundation feels that this:
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple
> > is the minimum amount of protection it needs.
>
> If may also depend if the documentation is bundled in a release or not or
> just displayed on a web site. [1]
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
> 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-webpages
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the project
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> However, since when you contribute to ASF projects you license your
> code to the Foundation, the Foundation feels that this:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple
> is the minimum amount of protection it needs.
If may also depend if the documentation is bundled in a release or not or just displayed on a web site. [1]
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-webpages
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the project
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Manfred Moser <ma...@simpligility.com> wrote:
> Sorry ... I can just tell you that the development team at a client of mine
> was advised by their corporate lawyer to change all copyright notices that
> way to reduce churn and keep it up to date. You might have to get
> confirmation from some lawyer helping the ASF if you need something more in
> detail.
Here's an elephant in the room: strictly speaking copyright springs into
existence the moment you create the work (it may be yours or your
employer's but the principle still applies). You really only need copyright
if you're about to sue somebody. Then having it as clear as it can possibly
be displayed help prove that there was, indeed, an infringement perpetrated.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-registration-notice-enforcement-faq-29067.html
and
http://www.copyright.gov
are your friends if you want to find out more.
Ultimately -- it is up to you, as a creator to decide what level of proof you
feel comfortable with.
However, since when you contribute to ASF projects you license your
code to the Foundation, the Foundation feels that this:
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple
is the minimum amount of protection it needs.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org