Re: [Python-Dev] Copyright notices in modules
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >> 2009/1/20 Raymond Hettinger : >>> >>> I'm at a loss of why the notice needs to be there at all. >> >> There's a difference between contributing a whole file and >> contributing a patch. Patches do not require copyright notices. Whole >> files do. This is not affected by later edits to the file. > > In my comment, I postulated the situation where the patch consisted of > merging in another, independently copyrighted, 'whole file'. Perhaps this > has mostly been a non-existent situation and therefor moot. > > One real situation I was thinking of, unconnected to Google as far as I am > aware, is the case of two third-party IP6 modules and the suggestion that > they be merged into one stdlib module. If that were accomplished by > committing one and merging the other in a patch, it would be unfair (and > untrue) to have just one copyright notice. Of course, in this case, I hope > the two authors work everything out between themselves first before any > submission. There's nothing top stop you from having multiple copyrights in one file, when that represents the rights of the original authors fairly. > I completely understand about strongly preferring programming to lawyer > consultation ;-). -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Copyright notices in modules
Guido van Rossum wrote: 2009/1/20 Raymond Hettinger : I'm at a loss of why the notice needs to be there at all. There's a difference between contributing a whole file and contributing a patch. Patches do not require copyright notices. Whole files do. This is not affected by later edits to the file. In my comment, I postulated the situation where the patch consisted of merging in another, independently copyrighted, 'whole file'. Perhaps this has mostly been a non-existent situation and therefor moot. One real situation I was thinking of, unconnected to Google as far as I am aware, is the case of two third-party IP6 modules and the suggestion that they be merged into one stdlib module. If that were accomplished by committing one and merging the other in a patch, it would be unfair (and untrue) to have just one copyright notice. Of course, in this case, I hope the two authors work everything out between themselves first before any submission. I completely understand about strongly preferring programming to lawyer consultation ;-). tjr ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Copyright notices in modules
I would be all for cleaning up, if the lawyers agree, but I've spent enough time talking to lawyers for the rest of my life. You know where to reach Van Lindberg. On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > [Raymond Hettinger] >>> >>> I'm at a loss of why the notice needs to be there at all. > > [GvR] >> >> There's a difference between contributing a whole file and >> contributing a patch. Patches do not require copyright notices. Whole >> files do. This is not affected by later edits to the file. > > That makes sense. In general though, I think if a contributor isn't > required by their company to add a copyright, then this sort of thing > should be left out of the source code. Most of the contributors here > don't seem to copyright-up everything they do (with the exception > of big packages or externally maintained resources). > > If everyone making a significant contribution has a contributor agreement > on file, perhaps we can build a list of those in a single file rather than > scattering notices throughout the code. I don't see that those benefit > anyone (maintainers, the original contributor, or the contributor's > company). > > At least these notices are somewhat innocuous. The ones that were > the most irritating are the ones requiring a literal copy of the notice > to be placed in the docs. A while back, I spent a day getting us in > compliance with those. > > FWIW, I'm not picking on anyone. I would just like to see a practice > emerge where these stop getting added and perhaps start getting removed > unless they are actually necessary for some reason (i.e. a company requires > it). > > AFAICT, little notices like the one atop numbers.py don't confer property > rights to anyone. The original purpose of a copyright notice has been lost. > It has become useless boilerplate, a toothless warning sign about a > unclaimable > property claim on donated code. > > > Raymond > > > P.S. It seems silly that the copyright on PEP3141 says, "this document has > been placed in the public domain" but the code itself has a company > copyright. > The former seems like something someone would care more about as a > creative expression or original research. > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Copyright notices in modules
[Raymond Hettinger] I'm at a loss of why the notice needs to be there at all. [GvR] There's a difference between contributing a whole file and contributing a patch. Patches do not require copyright notices. Whole files do. This is not affected by later edits to the file. That makes sense. In general though, I think if a contributor isn't required by their company to add a copyright, then this sort of thing should be left out of the source code. Most of the contributors here don't seem to copyright-up everything they do (with the exception of big packages or externally maintained resources). If everyone making a significant contribution has a contributor agreement on file, perhaps we can build a list of those in a single file rather than scattering notices throughout the code. I don't see that those benefit anyone (maintainers, the original contributor, or the contributor's company). At least these notices are somewhat innocuous. The ones that were the most irritating are the ones requiring a literal copy of the notice to be placed in the docs. A while back, I spent a day getting us in compliance with those. FWIW, I'm not picking on anyone. I would just like to see a practice emerge where these stop getting added and perhaps start getting removed unless they are actually necessary for some reason (i.e. a company requires it). AFAICT, little notices like the one atop numbers.py don't confer property rights to anyone. The original purpose of a copyright notice has been lost. It has become useless boilerplate, a toothless warning sign about a unclaimable property claim on donated code. Raymond P.S. It seems silly that the copyright on PEP3141 says, "this document has been placed in the public domain" but the code itself has a company copyright. The former seems like something someone would care more about as a creative expression or original research. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Copyright notices in modules
2009/1/20 Raymond Hettinger : > I'm at a loss of why the notice needs to be there at all. There's a difference between contributing a whole file and contributing a patch. Patches do not require copyright notices. Whole files do. This is not affected by later edits to the file. > AFAICT, we've > had tons of contributions from googlers and only one has put a Google > copyright notice in the source. I count 28 .py files with a Google copyright and 127 with other copyrights (not counting the 47 PSF copyrights :-). Why are you picking on Google? -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Copyright notices in modules
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > [Terry Reedy] >> >> Bottom line to me. The current notion of copyright does not work too well >> with evolving, loosely collective works (which eventually become >> 'folklore'). > > I'm at a loss of why the notice needs to be there at all. AFAICT, we've > had tons of contributions from googlers and only one has put a Google > copyright notice in the source. Oh? Grepping through the source shows no less than 30 copyright notices from Google. -- Regards, Benjamin ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Copyright notices in modules
[Terry Reedy] Bottom line to me. The current notion of copyright does not work too well with evolving, loosely collective works (which eventually become 'folklore'). I'm at a loss of why the notice needs to be there at all. AFAICT, we've had tons of contributions from googlers and only one has put a Google copyright notice in the source. Raymond ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Copyright notices in modules
On 2009-01-20 16:54, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> M.-A. Lemburg writes:
> > On 2009-01-20 11:02, Michael Foord wrote:
>
> > > Mere collections of facts are not copyrightable as they are not
> > > creative (the basis of copyright)
>
> That's incorrect in the U.S.; what is copyrightable is an *original
> work of expression fixed in some medium*. "Original" is closely
> related to "creative", but it's not the same. The emphasis is on
> novelty, not on the intellectual power involved. So, for example, you
> can copyright a set of paint splashes on paper, as long as they're
> *new* paint splashes.
>
> The real issue here, however, is "expression". What's important is
> whether there are different ways to say it. So you can indeed
> copyright the phone book or a dictionary, which *does* protect such
> things as unusual use of typefaces or color to aid understanding.
> What you can't do is prevent someone from publishing another phone
> book or dictionary based on the same facts, and since "put it in
> alphabetical order" hasn't been an original form of expression since
> Aristotle or so, they can alphabetize their phone book or dictionary,
> and it is going to look a lot like yours.
The above argument is what makes copyright so complicated. Computer
software has been given the same status as a piece of literary work,
so all conventions for such works apply.
However, this doesn't necessarily mean that all computer software
is copyrightable per-se. The key problem is defining the threshold of
originality needed for a work to become copyrightable at all and
that's where different jurisdictions use different definitions or
guidelines based on case law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
E.g. in Germany it is common not to grant copyright on logos that
are used as trademarks. OTOH, use of a logo in the trademark
sense automatically makes it a trademark (even without registration).
> On the other hand, ABCs are not a "mere collection of facts". They are
> subject to various forms of organization (top down, bottom up,
> alphabetical order, etc), and that organization will in general be
> copyrightable. Also, unless your ABCs are all independent of each
> other, you will be making choices about when to derive and when to
> define from scratch. That aspect of organization is expressive, and
> once written down ("fixed in a medium") it is copyrightable.
>
> > > I recommend his book by the way - I'm about half way through so far and
> > > it is highly readable
>
> Larry Rosen's book is also good.
--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com
Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Jan 20 2009)
>>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ...http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...http://python.egenix.com/
::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free !
eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Copyright notices in modules
M.-A. Lemburg wrote: On 2009-01-20 00:56, Raymond Hettinger wrote: Why does numbers.py say: # Copyright 2007 Google, Inc. All Rights Reserved. # Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement. Because that's where that file originated, I guess. This is part of what you have to do for things that are licensed to the PSF under a contributor agreement: http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ """ Contributor shall identify each Contribution by placing the following notice in its source code adjacent to Contributor's valid copyright notice: "Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement." """ Weren't there multiple contributors including non-google people? The initial contribution was done by Google (Jeffrey Yasskin AFAIK) and that's where the above lines originated from. Thank you for the explanation, here and below, as far as it goes. But what about the copyrightable and therefore copywrited contributions of others? Does Google (in this case) get an automatic transfer of copyright to Google? A single copyright notice seems to imply that. In the case of minor edits of the original work, perhaps yes. When, for instance, I send an author notice of a typo or a suggested rephasing of a sentence, I consider that a donation to the author. In the case of new work, added to the file by PSF so that the file become a compilation or anthology of the work of several people, I should think not. If there is any copyright notice, then perhaps there should be several -- one for each 'major' (new section) contributor and one for the PSF for the compilation. I have occasional seen such things in printed works. Does Google want to be associated with code that was submitted with no tests? Only Google can comment on this. Do we want this sort of stuff in the code? Yes, it is required by the contrib forms. Then it seems to me that there should/could be a notice for each major contributor of independent and separately copyrightable sections. If someone signs a contributor agreement, can we forgo the external copyright comments? No. See above. Only the copyright owner can remove such notices. Do we want to make a practice of every contributor commenting in the name of the company they were working for at the time (if so, I would have to add the comment to a lot of modules)? That depends on the contract a contributor has with the company that funded the work. It's quite common for such contracts to include a clause stating that all IP generated during work time is owned by the employer. Does the copyright concept even apply to an abstract base class (I thought APIs were not subject to copyright, just like database layouts and language definitions)? It applies to the written program text. You are probably thinking about other IP rights such as patents or designs. Bottom line to me. The current notion of copyright does not work too well with evolving, loosely collective works (which eventually become 'folklore'). Terry Jan Reedy ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Copyright notices in modules
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg writes:
> On 2009-01-20 11:02, Michael Foord wrote:
> > Mere collections of facts are not copyrightable as they are not
> > creative (the basis of copyright)
That's incorrect in the U.S.; what is copyrightable is an *original
work of expression fixed in some medium*. "Original" is closely
related to "creative", but it's not the same. The emphasis is on
novelty, not on the intellectual power involved. So, for example, you
can copyright a set of paint splashes on paper, as long as they're
*new* paint splashes.
No but expression is more strongly related to creative.
The real issue here, however, is "expression". What's important is
whether there are different ways to say it. So you can indeed
copyright the phone book or a dictionary, which *does* protect such
things as unusual use of typefaces or color to aid understanding.
What you can't do is prevent someone from publishing another phone
book or dictionary based on the same facts, and since "put it in
alphabetical order" hasn't been an original form of expression since
Aristotle or so, they can alphabetize their phone book or dictionary,
and it is going to look a lot like yours.
On the other hand, ABCs are not a "mere collection of facts". They are
subject to various forms of organization (top down, bottom up,
alphabetical order, etc), and that organization will in general be
copyrightable. Also, unless your ABCs are all independent of each
other, you will be making choices about when to derive and when to
define from scratch. That aspect of organization is expressive, and
once written down ("fixed in a medium") it is copyrightable.
As you say - mere ordering does not render something copyrightable.
Phone books and maps deliberately insert fictitious data in order to be
eligible for copyright under these terms.
On the other hand I'm inclined to believe that there is enough original
expression in the ABCs to be copyrightable. It's a basically irrelevant
point though. :-)
Michael
> > I recommend his book by the way - I'm about half way through so far and
> > it is highly readable
Larry Rosen's book is also good.
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Copyright notices in modules
M.-A. Lemburg writes:
> On 2009-01-20 11:02, Michael Foord wrote:
> > Mere collections of facts are not copyrightable as they are not
> > creative (the basis of copyright)
That's incorrect in the U.S.; what is copyrightable is an *original
work of expression fixed in some medium*. "Original" is closely
related to "creative", but it's not the same. The emphasis is on
novelty, not on the intellectual power involved. So, for example, you
can copyright a set of paint splashes on paper, as long as they're
*new* paint splashes.
The real issue here, however, is "expression". What's important is
whether there are different ways to say it. So you can indeed
copyright the phone book or a dictionary, which *does* protect such
things as unusual use of typefaces or color to aid understanding.
What you can't do is prevent someone from publishing another phone
book or dictionary based on the same facts, and since "put it in
alphabetical order" hasn't been an original form of expression since
Aristotle or so, they can alphabetize their phone book or dictionary,
and it is going to look a lot like yours.
On the other hand, ABCs are not a "mere collection of facts". They are
subject to various forms of organization (top down, bottom up,
alphabetical order, etc), and that organization will in general be
copyrightable. Also, unless your ABCs are all independent of each
other, you will be making choices about when to derive and when to
define from scratch. That aspect of organization is expressive, and
once written down ("fixed in a medium") it is copyrightable.
> > I recommend his book by the way - I'm about half way through so far and
> > it is highly readable
Larry Rosen's book is also good.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Copyright notices in modules
On 2009-01-20 11:02, Michael Foord wrote: > M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> [snip...] >> >>> Does the copyright concept even apply to an >>> abstract base class (I thought APIs were not >>> subject to copyright, just like database layouts >>> and language definitions)? >>> >> >> It applies to the written program text. You are probably >> thinking about other IP rights such as patents or designs. >> >> > > You need to read Van Lindberg's excellent book on intellectual property > rights and open source (which is about American law and European law > will be different). Mere collections of facts are not copyrightable as > they are not creative (the basis of copyright) and this is presumed to > apply to parts of software like header files and interface descriptions > - which could easily apply to ABCs in Python. I doubt that you can make such assumptions in general. It's a case-by-case decision and also one that depends on the copyright law or convention you assume. See e.g. the WIPO copyright treaty: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html#P56_5626 and the Berne Convention: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P85_10661 and TRIPS: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04_e.htm#1 That said, for numbers.py there's certainly enough creativity in that file to enjoy copyright protection. > I recommend his book by the way - I'm about half way through so far and > it is highly readable Thanks for the pointer. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Jan 20 2009) >>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ...http://www.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...http://python.egenix.com/ ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Copyright notices in modules
M.-A. Lemburg wrote: [snip...] Does the copyright concept even apply to an abstract base class (I thought APIs were not subject to copyright, just like database layouts and language definitions)? It applies to the written program text. You are probably thinking about other IP rights such as patents or designs. You need to read Van Lindberg's excellent book on intellectual property rights and open source (which is about American law and European law will be different). Mere collections of facts are not copyrightable as they are not creative (the basis of copyright) and this is presumed to apply to parts of software like header files and interface descriptions - which could easily apply to ABCs in Python. I recommend his book by the way - I'm about half way through so far and it is highly readable Michael Foord -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Copyright notices in modules
On 2009-01-20 00:56, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > Why does numbers.py say: > ># Copyright 2007 Google, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ># Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement. Because that's where that file originated, I guess. This is part of what you have to do for things that are licensed to the PSF under a contributor agreement: http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ """ Contributor shall identify each Contribution by placing the following notice in its source code adjacent to Contributor's valid copyright notice: "Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement." """ > Weren't there multiple contributors including non-google people? The initial contribution was done by Google (Jeffrey Yasskin AFAIK) and that's where the above lines originated from. > Does Google want to be associated with code that > was submitted with no tests? Only Google can comment on this. > Do we want this sort of stuff in the code? Yes, it is required by the contrib forms. > If someone signs a contributor agreement, can we > forgo the external copyright comments? No. See above. Only the copyright owner can remove such notices. > Do we want to make a practice of every contributor > commenting in the name of the company they were > working for at the time (if so, I would have to add > the comment to a lot of modules)? That depends on the contract a contributor has with the company that funded the work. It's quite common for such contracts to include a clause stating that all IP generated during work time is owned by the employer. > Does the copyright concept even apply to an > abstract base class (I thought APIs were not > subject to copyright, just like database layouts > and language definitions)? It applies to the written program text. You are probably thinking about other IP rights such as patents or designs. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Jan 20 2009) >>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ...http://www.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...http://python.egenix.com/ ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Copyright notices in modules
Raymond Hettinger writes: > Does the copyright concept even apply to an abstract base class (I > thought APIs were not subject to copyright, just like database > layouts and language definitions)? Yes, it does, although a public API per se is not subject to copyright, because there's only one way to do it. Any comments, internal implementation (eg, names of persistent state variables, members, and constants, and the very existence of those identifiers), and tests are subject to copyright because they are expressive. I believe that a private API also can be subject to copyright, though I'm not as sure of that. The point being that there are good APIs and bad APIs that expose the same functionality, so that API design is expressive. However, if you expose the API and license people to use it, that license makes it impossible to restrict them from using it thereafter. Caveat: IANAL, and this is under U.S. law. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Copyright notices in modules
Why does numbers.py say: # Copyright 2007 Google, Inc. All Rights Reserved. # Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement. Weren't there multiple contributors including non-google people? Does Google want to be associated with code that was submitted with no tests? Do we want this sort of stuff in the code? If someone signs a contributor agreement, can we forgo the external copyright comments? Do we want to make a practice of every contributor commenting in the name of the company they were working for at the time (if so, I would have to add the comment to a lot of modules)? Does the copyright concept even apply to an abstract base class (I thought APIs were not subject to copyright, just like database layouts and language definitions)? Raymond ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
