www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Apache Wiki <wikidi...@apache.org>
Subject [Legal Wiki] Update of "3party/notice/discuss" by SebastianBazley
Date Tue, 04 Mar 2008 03:02:56 GMT
Dear Wiki user,

You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Legal Wiki" for change notification.

The following page has been changed by SebastianBazley:
http://wiki.apache.org/legal/3party/notice/discuss

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      * [!SamRuby] I'm not sure I understand this question.  One distribution, multiple files,
one set of NOTICE, LICENSE, and README files. [!SebastianBazley] I was thinking of projects
which distribute archives containing multiple jars. The jars may also be distributed independently
(e.g. via Maven repositories), so presumably need N & L files too. Or some projects may
have multiple archives which include different combinations of files - perhaps one which contains
everything, and others which contain different subsets.
   * The NOTICE file also contains the line {{{Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation}}}.
What are the rules for {{{[yyyy]}}}? Is it only supposed to be the year of release? Originally
when the copyright years were in the source files, I believe the rule was that the year was
supposed to be updated every time there was a substantial (copyrightable) change.
    * [!SamRuby] it is my understanding that the [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#fnv
minimum necessary] is to put the year of first publication, and that (in the US at least),
copyright [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act lasts for
95 years]; and therefore should be updated more frequently that that for works expected to
still be of any value beyond that term.  I've also seen some people put forward some non-legal
reasons for suggesting that the year be kept current, but in general skipping a year or three
doesn't seem to raise any significant concerns.
+   * [!SebastianBazley] In that case, the example NOTICE file above is wrong, unless the
Apache HTTP server was first published in 2008 ;-)
  
  [!HenriYandell] Comments
   * Should we provide a 'how to do attribution' section against NOTICEs for each license?
I'm thinking of the recent discussion on CPL and how it should provide a link to the original
homepage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message