Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8AB67B258 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:05:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 44845 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2012 20:05:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 44446 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2012 20:04:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 44439 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jan 2012 20:04:58 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:04:58 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gstein@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.50 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.212.50] (HELO mail-vw0-f50.google.com) (209.85.212.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:04:54 +0000 Received: by vbbfq11 with SMTP id fq11so1728096vbb.23 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:04:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=w4cqYPOOjs3XlaeIUAKMVIjreOsZqrUskJLPx21AJcE=; b=ZPAhB7duUQ+S1f7FFaV41w/Vbect7dBnhtreLmyxGnWiePWQ75nbPrURzRc18z9Qyl +wq5JqWnkftxUJWdAh0fzWYnQuoOIp4u47V2CNaqN2HcY6Jbaa9gCyzjBZPSiuZ36r4G 7ERHx82/7Rbwlj/XdfX38zTYOgBrsSLuIH38Y= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.20.78 with SMTP id l14mr2852792vde.62.1327262673865; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:04:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.10.19 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:04:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.10.19 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:04:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:04:29 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Updating source files with copyright dates From: Greg Stein To: legal-discuss@apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307d013a330c5404b7236c86 --20cf307d013a330c5404b7236c86 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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" 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 =A9 (the letter C in a circle), or the word =93Copyright,=94= or the > abbreviation =93Copr.=94; 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 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > --20cf307d013a330c5404b7236c86 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 z= ero impact compared to the actual commit history that demonstrates it is yo= ur work. "Your work" is the operative issue; not when you happene= d to do that work.

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

Cheers,
-g

On Jan 20, 2012 6:14 PM, "John Selbie"= <john@selbie.com> wrote:
Thanks Ralph.
=A0
I'm inclined to use the foll= owing quote from that document as guidance:
=A0
"t= he year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is = sufficient"
=A0
Form = of Notice for Visually Perceptible Copies
=A0
The notic= e for visually perceptible copies should contain all the following three el= ements:
=A0
1 The symbol =A9 (the letter C in a circle), or the word= =93Copyright,=94 or the abbreviation =93Copr.=94; and
=A0
<= div>2 The year of first publication of the work. In the case of compilation= s or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year= date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is suffici= ent. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural= work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on gre= eting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful art= icle; and 3 The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviat= ion by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative d= esignation of the owner.
=A0
=A0=A0
=A0
=A0
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:40 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
=A0

No. See=A0http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf. You sho= uld only change the copyright for the things you modify. My understanding i= s that an inaccurate date can invalidate your copyright as the length of th= e copyright is determined for the date of first publication. When you make = changes only those changes start from the new date.

=A0
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:22 PM, = John Selbie <john@selbie.com> wrote:
=A0
Greetings,
=A0
I would have thought the following question would be in an FAQ
somewhere, but I could not find it.
=A0
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.
=A0
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:
=A0
/*
=A0 Copyright 2011 John Selbie
=A0
=A0 Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"= ;);
=A0 you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
=
=A0 You may obtain a copy of the License at
=A0
=A0
=A0 Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
=A0 distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" B= ASIS,
=A0 WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implie= d.
=A0 See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
=A0 limitations under the License.
*/
=A0
So here's my simple question. =A0It's now 2012. =A0I'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") ?
=A0
Thanks,
John Selbie
=A0
---------------------------------------------------------------------
=
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
--20cf307d013a330c5404b7236c86--