httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <>
Subject copyrights...
Date Tue, 06 Aug 1996 19:27:24 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.

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.

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". 

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.

-- Alexei Kosut <>            The Apache HTTP Server

View raw message