www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edward Ribeiro <edward.ribe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the project
Date Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:24:50 GMT
Thanks everybody for the insightful suggestions and links. It helped a lot.

Cheers,
Eddie

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@apache.org> wrote:

> I like this approach of dropping the year and relying on the source
> history, it simplifies things for us in ZooKeeper. If it is acceptable, I
> suggest we use it.
>
> -Flavio
>
> On 01 Oct 2016, at 20:25, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Or even drop the year.
>
> Just saying "Copyright <Entity>" and then a FAQ that says "How do we
> determine the year of copyright?   Use the source control - we are a public
> foundation and the source history is open to all. "
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
>
>> There seems to be a misunderstanding about what the copyright dates
>> signify.  If a document has not changed since 2008, then there is nothing
>> to change in a Copyright (c) 2008 notice because there is no newer content,
>> and no matter what gets put in the notice, the term of the copyright does
>> not increase (except by changes in the copyright law, such as the term
>> extension created to protect Walt Disney copyrights).
>>
>> I notice that book publishers have gone to just using the date of the
>> latest content and not the multiple dates of publication in successive
>> editions of some works. (Check recent latest editions of The Art of
>> Computer Programming volumes).
>>
>> Since the ASF recommends not putting ASF notices on individual files and
>> simply providing the ALv2 license notification, exactly why/where is it so
>> important to keep updating copyright notices in many places?  And do the
>> additional dates genuinely reflect presence of additional/modified content
>> subject to copyright?  Doing this as a rubber-stamp exercise is probably
>> harmless but it is not clear what it accomplishes where the content subject
>> to copyright has not changed.
>>
>>  -- dennis
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
>> > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 21:34
>> > To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: Update copyright notice of docs distributed with the
>> > project
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > > However, since when you contribute to ASF projects you license your
>> > > code to the Foundation, the Foundation feels that this:
>> > >   http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple
>> > > is the minimum amount of protection it needs.
>> >
>> > If may also depend if the documentation is bundled in a release or not
>> > or just displayed on a web site. [1]
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Justin
>> >
>> >
>> > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-webpages
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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