Re: copyright vs. license
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:59:55PM -0600, Matthew Dempsky wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For a GPLed project, the declaration looks something like this: * Copyright (C) Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Shouldn't you include a year? It's not required. And I get bored by updating them. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: copyright vs. license
Shouldn't you include a year? It's not required. And I get bored by updating them. The year should be included. Here is a reference: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html An excerpt: excerpt The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all the following three elements: 1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word Copyright, or the abbreviation Copr.; and 2. The year of first publication of the work. In the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful article; and 3. The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner. Example: © 2002 John Doe /exceprt David Renie
Re: copyright vs. license
Thomas writes: Yes, the year is required, and moreover, you need to add a new year every time there is a new publication in a year not already mentioned (without removing the old years, since the new publication is a derived work). No notice is required by law at all. However, it is a good idea to include one and to do so correctly. It's not hard to do. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: copyright vs. license
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [updating copyright years] I have a handy-dandy emacs lisp frob that will do this automagically for you if you like. I would like this. -- Ben Pfaff email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://benpfaff.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: copyright vs. license
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:08:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's not required. And I get bored by updating them. Yes, the year is required, and moreover, you need to add a new year every time there is a new publication in a year not already mentioned (without removing the old years, since the new publication is a derived work). This hasn't been necessary since the 1970s. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: copyright vs. license
Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [updating copyright years] I have a handy-dandy emacs lisp frob that will do this automagically for you if you like. I would like this. ;; When we save a file with a GPL copyright, prompt to suggest ;; modifying the notice to contain the most recent GPL version and ;; include the current year. (defconst current-year (substring (current-time-string) -4) String representing the current year.) (defvar current-gpl-version 2 String representing the current version of the GPL.) (defun update-copyright-with-queries () My version of update-copyright. (save-excursion (save-restriction (widen) (goto-char (point-min)) (and (re-search-forward [i]s free software nil t) (not (eq major-mode 'rmail-mode)) (let ((limit (point))) (goto-char (point-min)) (re-search-forward [Cc]opyright[^0-9]*\\(\\([-, \t]*\\([0-9]+\\)\\)\\)+ limit t)) (progn (forward-word -1) (not (looking-at current-year))) (progn (goto-char (point-min)) (sit-for 0) (y-or-n-p Update copyright? )) (let ((replace (y-or-n-p Replace year? ))) (or (re-search-forward [Cc]opyright[^0-9]*\\(\\([-, \t]*\\([0-9]+\\)\\)\\)+ nil t) (error This buffer contains no copyright notice!)) (if replace (delete-region (match-beginning 1) (match-end 1)) (insert , )) (insert current-year) (message Copyright updated to %s%s. (if replace include ) current-year) (if (re-search-forward ; either version \\(.+\\), or (at your option) nil t) (progn (goto-char (match-beginning 1)) (delete-region (point) (match-end 1)) (insert current-gpl-version (setq write-file-hooks (cons 'update-copyright-with-queries write-file-hooks)) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: copyright vs. license
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I care about that stuff. All I could ever want from copyright on a GPLed work is an injunction to stop violating it. Actually, you can even fail to get that in practice. Really, just put the date; it's not too much trouble. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: copyright vs. license
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:27:12AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I care about that stuff. All I could ever want from copyright on a GPLed work is an injunction to stop violating it. Actually, you can even fail to get that in practice. Not in any sane country. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: copyright vs. license
On Thursday 13 January 2005 11:18 am, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [updating copyright years] I have a handy-dandy emacs lisp frob that will do this automagically for you if you like. I would like this. Slight modification that works more conveniently for me (this is the only significant chunk of elisp I've tried to write, so may be buggy; it worked in tests, though): === cut here === (defconst current-year (substring (current-time-string) -4) String representing the current year.) (defconst last-year (int-to-string (- (string-to-int current-year) 1)) String representing the current year (presuming that the current year is not 1 AD, which hopefully will continue to be the case indefinitely).) (defvar current-gpl-version 2 String representing the current version of the GPL.) (defvar copyright-regex [Cc]opyright\\s *\\(([Cc])\\)?\\(\\s *[0-9]+\\s *\\(-\\s *[0-9]+\\s *\\)?,\\s *\\)*\\s *\\(\\([0-9]+\\)\\s *-\\)?\\s *\\([0-9]+\\) Regular expression to match common copyright declarations, extracting the final year(s).) ;; Note: paren expr. #5 is the first year of the last dashed pair, if ;; any; paren expr. #6 is the last year. (defun update-copyright-with-queries () My version of update-copyright. (save-excursion (save-restriction (widen) (goto-char (point-min)) (and (re-search-forward [i]s free software nil t) (not (eq major-mode 'rmail-mode)) (let ((limit (point))) (goto-char (point-min)) (re-search-forward copyright-regex limit t)) (let ((final-year (match-string 6)) (final-range-start (match-string 5))) (when (and (not (string= final-year current-year)) (progn (goto-char (point-min)) (sit-for 0) (y-or-n-p (format Update copyright (last %s)? final-year (if (string= final-year last-year) (if final-range-start (progn (goto-char (match-end 6)) (delete-region (match-beginning 6) (match-end 6)) (insert current-year)) (progn (goto-char (match-end 6)) (insert -) (insert current-year))) (progn (goto-char (match-end 6)) (insert , ) (insert current-year))) t)) (message Copyright updated to include %s. current-year) (if (re-search-forward ; either version \\(.+\\), or (at your option) nil t) (progn (goto-char (match-beginning 1)) (delete-region (point) (match-end 1)) (insert current-gpl-version))) (setq write-file-hooks (cons 'update-copyright-with-queries write-file-hooks)) == cut here Daniel -- /--- Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] --\ | Whom the gods would destroy, they first teach BASIC.| \--- News without the $$ -- National Public Radio -- http://www.npr.org ---/ pgpzYAZtDHGeP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: copyright vs. license
Shouldn't you include a year? It's not required. And I get bored by updating them. The year should be included. Here is a reference: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html If only one year is listed in a source file / copyright file, should it be the first year the work started or the most recent year the work was modified? I am interested in Canadian and American copyright law primarily. Please cc me in your reply. Cheers, Shaun -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: copyright vs. license
Shaun Jackman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shouldn't you include a year? It's not required. And I get bored by updating them. The year should be included. Here is a reference: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html If only one year is listed in a source file / copyright file, should it be the first year the work started or the most recent year the work was modified? It should be every year that the work was published. (If you publish in year N, then modify and publish the new thing in year M, you should list both years.) There is no harm in listing extra years. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: copyright vs. license
Thomas writes: It should be every year that the work was published. (If you publish in year N, then modify and publish the new thing in year M, you should list both years.) There is no harm in listing extra years. There could be if you do so in a way that could be construed as an attempt to fraudulently extend the life of the copyright. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: copyright vs. license
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There could be if you do so in a way that could be construed as an attempt to fraudulently extend the life of the copyright. At the moment it seems doubtful that any current copyright will ever expire. -- Ben Pfaff email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://benpfaff.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: copyright vs. license
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:52:06PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: Hi all, I've been manually filing bugs against packages with improper copyright files, as per this thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/03/msg02190.html The example here is not a good one. While it's not desperately important for a package licensed entirely under the GPL, in general you should include the license declaration from upstream in the copyright file verbatim. For a GPLed project, the declaration looks something like this: * Copyright (C) Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the * GNU General Public License for more details. * * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA And *then* you include either a reference to the license (for stuff in common-licenses) or a copy of the license itself. If your project doesn't contain a statement along the lines of the above then somebody forgot to license it at all. If they also included a copy of the GPL in the project tree then they need kicking until they read the instructions at the bottom of it. Most of the stock license texts don't contain anything like this (key points: names of copyright holders, stuff covered by the license (this program), reference to the license text itself). This is extremely important for packages covered by multiple licenses. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
