httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chuck Murcko <ch...@telebase.com>
Subject Re: copyrights...
Date Sun, 11 Aug 1996 14:28:36 GMT
Alexei Kosut liltingly intones:
> 
> I brought up earlier updating the LICENSE file and the various licenses to
> say "1996" where applicable. There was a question, however, of the best
> way to do this; someone mentioned that in UK law, it was neccessary, for
> example, to say "1995, 1996" as opposed to "1995-96" or whatnot. In
> addition, there was a question as to whether files which have not been
> updated since 1995 (i.e. Apache 1.0) should be changed as well.
> 
I'm not sure it's that relevant. To quote from The Legal Guide to
Computer Software Protection (Harris, 1984, Pub. Prentice-Hall):

"Once a work enters the public domain - whether it is a book, an article,
a song, or a computer program - it is fair game. The original author no
longer enjoys the exclusive rights of reproduction, adaptation, and
publication that are guaranteed to a copyright holder. Once the material
is in the public domain, the author loses all of the exclusive rights
discussed previously. Anyone may copy, distribute, or even sell the
work in question without penalty of infringement."

While it'd be good to keep the copyrights up to date, I'd have to ask
if we've ever actually registered the copyright (about a $10.00 fee).
Ultimately, though, we're relying on the goodwill of those who derive
benefit from Apache, not actual strength of copyright law.

This is based on 1978 law, and may have been revised. I've not heard
anything different, though. Comments and corrections welcome.

chuck
Chuck Murcko	N2K Inc.	Wayne PA	chuck@telebase.com
And now, on a lighter note:
I don't care for the Sugar Smacks commercial.  I don't like the idea of
a frog jumping on my Breakfast.
		-- Lowell, Chicago Reader 10/15/82

Mime
View raw message