www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Updating source files with copyright dates
Date Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:04:29 GMT
Actually, the shorter answer is "get it close, but don't worry about it."
(per a lawyer friend of mine)

What you put in the header is advisory. If you end up in court, it has zero
impact compared to the actual commit history that demonstrates it is your
work. "Your work" is the operative issue; not when you happened to do that
work.

If you plan to file copies of your work with the USPTO, then the years may
matter. I have no input there.

Cheers,
-g
 On Jan 20, 2012 6:14 PM, "John Selbie" <john@selbie.com> wrote:

> Thanks Ralph.
>
> I'm inclined to use the following quote from that document as guidance:
>
> "the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work
> is sufficient"
>
>
> Form of Notice for Visually Perceptible Copies
>
> The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all the
> following three elements:
>
> 1 The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright,” or the
> abbreviation “Copr.”; and
>
> 2 The year of first publication of the work. In the case of compilations
> or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year
> date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is
> sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or
> sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in
> or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any
> useful article; and 3 The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an
> abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known
> alternative designation of the owner.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:40 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com <
> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>
>> No. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf. You should only change
>> the copyright for the things you modify. My understanding is that an
>> inaccurate date can invalidate your copyright as the length of the
>> copyright is determined for the date of first publication. When you make
>> changes only those changes start from the new date.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:22 PM, John Selbie <john@selbie.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> I would have thought the following question would be in an FAQ
>>> somewhere, but I could not find it.
>>>
>>> Last year, I released an open source project with code on github under
>>> the Apache 2.0 license. (A stun server code base at
>>> https://github.com/jselbie/stunserver ). All the code distributed was
>>> written by me.
>>>
>>> As per the instructions in the Appendix of the Apache 2.0 license, all
>>> the code source files were updated with the following text at the top:
>>>
>>> /*
>>>   Copyright 2011 John Selbie
>>>
>>>   Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
>>>   you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
>>>   You may obtain a copy of the License at
>>>
>>>       http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>>>
>>>   Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
>>>   distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
>>>   WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
>>> implied.
>>>   See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
>>>   limitations under the License.
>>> */
>>>
>>> So here's my simple question.  It's now 2012.  I'm about to release an
>>> update to the code base. Do I need to change the copyright year of
>>> each source file to say "2012" instead of "2011" (or it is "2011,2012"
>>> or "2011-2012") ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> John Selbie
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message