httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dirk vanGulik <>
Subject Re: copyrights...
Date Wed, 07 Aug 1996 09:18:22 GMT

> 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.

Are you sure of this, any unambigious declaration of the date should suffice.
> I'm not a lawyer, but I've done some research into this, and have come to
> the following conclusion:
> 1) The Berne Convention, to which most countries (including the US and UK)
> are signatories, does not specify a form for copyright notices. This is
> probably because, under the Berne Convention, all works are implicitly
> copyrighted. However, we have a copyright notice already (although it's
> really not neccessary, it tends to be a helpful reminder to people that it
> is a copyrighted work), so that's not helpful.

Well, that is the very essence of copyright, it is a right; and you can only
state your rights, but that is by definition superfluous, and you can by
their very nature not claim rights. ;-)
> 2) US law specifies, under Title 17, Chapter 4, Section 401(b), the form
> for copyright notices. However, it doesn't specify what to do if there is
> a range of years. It says to use the year of "first publication of the
> work, in the case of compliations, or derivative works incorporating
> previously published material, the year date of first publication of the
> compilation or derivative works is sufficient." Therefore, according to US
> law, it would be fine to simply change the "1995" to "1996". 

Would 1995 not suffice for any files older than 1996.
> Pulling down a number of books from my shelf, they mostly seem to
> correspond to (2), in that, even though I know many have been revised,
> they contain only the latest date of revision. 

> What this means, exactly, I don't know.

That the copyright/interlectual claim/property treaties are a mess :-)


View raw message