www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: short file short notices
Date Thu, 01 Nov 2012 01:40:27 GMT
David Crossley wrote:
> Could we also not have the Year if possible?

When you publish with a copyright notice, insert the current year as the
"year of first publication". As an example of legal foolishness, a copyright
notice isn't required, but if you have one the format is generally
prescribed by copyright law. See 17 USC ยง401.

/Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@apache.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:26 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: short file short notices

Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Someone quoted:
> >
> > (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply 
> > "Licensed under the terms of 
> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for 
> > everything we do.  But IANAL, etc...)
> 
> Suffice for what purpose? No notices are *required* to comply with
copyright or licensing law, but for the purpose of notifying recipients of
the origin and availability of a file, I suggest the following two-line
minimum notice:
> 
>      Copyright (C) 2012 The Apache Software Foundation.
>      Licensed under the terms of the
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.
> 
> Even that, though, is merely a nice-to-have, and so we shouldn't care 
> that it is moved in some cases to the bottom rather than the top of a 
> file. Or even omitted entirely for files shorter than 2 lines. :-)

Thanks for the clear and complete answer Larry.
Please remove the fly-speck at the end of the URL.
Could we also not have the Year if possible?

-David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:48 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: short file short notices
> 
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Craig L Russell 
> > <craig.russell@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, there are quite a bit of how-to files that will need to 
> >> change, and I think it would be good if there were a policy that
justifies it.
> >>
> >> Otherwise, we run the risk of getting some bit wrong.
> >>
> >> I'm +1 to make the change.
> >
> > If we finally get a "short header" approved, will that render this 
> > "license footer" proposal obsolete?  It seems sub-optimal to update 
> > those how-to files once, then update them again.
> >
> > (Personally, I don't see why Craig's short header[1] stating simply 
> > "Licensed under the terms of 
> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" does not suffice for 
> > everything we do.  But IANAL, etc...)
> 
> As I understand how things happen in the legal arena around here ...
> 
> To get a short header policy approved, someone has to say, "Here is my
practical problem on my TLP that would be solved by short headers (and is
not solved by the rules that exclude some things from copyright
altogether)". Any number of us who think it would be a good thing in theory,
but who don't represent an actual practical problem, won't cut it.
> 
> So, the question is, do any of the authors of these JIRA fill the bill?
> 
> >
> > Marvin Humphrey
> >
> > [1] http://s.apache.org/WHK (link to comment on legal JIRA-124)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message