Re: Run grand-replace to update copyright
On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 10:38:04AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote: I do not believe that there is a notion of package copyright in most countries' laws. On page http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html I see this: To update the list of year numbers, add each year in which you have ... not. It is recommended and simpler to add the new year to all files in the package, and be done with it for the rest of the year. This answers it, doesn't it? Indeed it does. My apologies for missing that paragraph. - does lilypond follow the GNU maintainers' guide? I hope so. If we don't, we should access our working routines. I don't think we discuss the copyright range format in our README.txt, so that's one instance in which we don't follow it. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Run grand-replace to update copyright
You can use a range (‘2008-2010’) instead of listing individual years (‘2008, 2009, 2010’) if and only if: 1) every year in the range, inclusive, really is a “copyrightable” year that would be listed individually; and 2) you make an explicit statement in a README file about this usage. OK. I strongly suggest that we use ranges. I don't get the same impression from that page. It begins by saying You should maintain a proper copyright notice and a license notice in each nontrivial file in the package. Well, looking at Emacs, one of the central FSF projects: They also do a `grand copyright year replacement' once a year (cf. commit 106782 in its bzr repository) in all files which have the FSF copyright notice – using ranges, BTW. Thus I don't see any reason why we shouldn't do that either. My corollary is still that we the copyright conversion script is buggy :-) Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Run grand-replace to update copyright
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote: Looks like a mistake in the conversion script. `2012' should be changed to `2012-2014', of course. The purpose of listing the year is to give an indication of when the copyright will expire. If the last copyrightable change to a document was in 2012, but the notice says 2014, then you're effectively claiming copyright for two years longer than you're actually entitled to. That's why it's not allowed (and invalidates the whole notice). 2012-2014 has the same problem, since it says (incorrectly) that some part of the document will still be under copyright after 2012+N. You've misread, I think: The guide doesn't say `file' but `package'. In general, this means that the copyright of *all* files of the LilyPond package should be updated. It might make sense to update them all if they're all meant to claim copyright on LilyPond as a whole, but I don't think that's the case right now. Some of them list different authors, for example. -- Ben (Sorry about the top posting last time; I wasn't thinking.) ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Run grand-replace to update copyright
Looks like a mistake in the conversion script. `2012' should be changed to `2012-2014', of course. The purpose of listing the year is to give an indication of when the copyright will expire. If the last copyrightable change to a document was in 2012, but the notice says 2014, then you're effectively claiming copyright for two years longer than you're actually entitled to. That's why it's not allowed (and invalidates the whole notice). 2012-2014 has the same problem, since it says (incorrectly) that some part of the document will still be under copyright after 2012+N. AFAIK, this is not correct. We have to make a distinction between singular files and files that a part of a package. What matters for us is the *package* copyright. Theoretically, no files in a package needs a copyright notice at all if there is a central copyright notice – consider some binary stuff where it isn't possible to add a copyright notice at all. As soon as a file becomes part of a package, it inherits the packages copyright. So if just a single file of a package gets changed, the copyright year in the package's copyright notice must be adjusted, and consequently this gets inherited by all files of the package, even if there was no change. You've misread, I think: The guide doesn't say `file' but `package'. In general, this means that the copyright of *all* files of the LilyPond package should be updated. It might make sense to update them all if they're all meant to claim copyright on LilyPond as a whole, but I don't think that's the case right now. Some of them list different authors, for example. Basically, you are right. However, there is a silent agreement that if someone contributes to lilypond, the contribution becomes part of the lilypond package, so the maintainers might adjust the copyright of the package and thus that of individual files. Of course, this doesn't cover the change of the license itself. If this silent agreement gets ever violated, we have to follow standard FSF procedures (since lilypond is an official GNU package), asking all contributors to sign copyright assignments to the FSF, which would be extremely tedious... Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Run grand-replace to update copyright
On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 09:37:30AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote: The purpose of listing the year is to give an indication of when the copyright will expire. AFAIK, this is not correct. We have to make a distinction between singular files and files that a part of a package. What matters for us is the *package* copyright. I do not believe that there is a notion of package copyright in most countries' laws. But at this point, I'd like to propose a distinction between (at least) two questions: - does the GNU maintainers' guide make suggestions that are founded in good legal understanding? - does lilypond follow the GNU maintainers' guide? I am reasonably confident that GNU organization consulted with lawyers as necessary to produce a good set of guidelines. Admittely the focus would likely be on US copyright law, but I'm still confident that GNU considered the international situation as well. However, it is always possible that somebody made a mistake, or that the guide is difficult to understand. In such case, I suggest contacting GNU directly. I think the second question is of more immediate concern for lilypond. If we don't follow the legal guidelines proposed by GNU, then we're in a much weaker position if any problems occur. If this silent agreement gets ever violated, we have to follow standard FSF procedures (since lilypond is an official GNU package), asking all contributors to sign copyright assignments to the FSF, which would be extremely tedious... Official GNU packages are not required to sign copyright to the FSF (that's in the guidelines), but they are encouraged to do so. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Run grand-replace to update copyright
AFAIK, this is not correct. We have to make a distinction between singular files and files that a part of a package. What matters for us is the *package* copyright. I do not believe that there is a notion of package copyright in most countries' laws. On page http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html I see this: To update the list of year numbers, add each year in which you have made nontrivial changes to the package. (Here we assume you’re using a publicly accessible revision control server, so that every revision installed is also immediately and automatically published.) When you add the new year, it is not required to keep track of which files have seen significant changes in the new year and which have not. It is recommended and simpler to add the new year to all files in the package, and be done with it for the rest of the year. This answers it, doesn't it? - does the GNU maintainers' guide make suggestions that are founded in good legal understanding? Definitely yes! The FSF Europe is also working on this. For example, the GPL has successfully defended in German courts. - does lilypond follow the GNU maintainers' guide? I hope so. If we don't, we should access our working routines. Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Run grand-replace to update copyright
Carl Sorensen carl.d.soren...@gmail.com writes: In response to issue 3765, I ran make grand-replace to update all copyright notices to 2014. It looks like I no longer have push privileges, so I couldn't push the patch to staging. According to Savannah, you still have push privileges (and I should be surprised if not). What did you try? What was the error message? Did you perhaps not use a member checkout? URL:http://savannah.gnu.org/git/?group=lilypond Note that if you a) have a member checkout b) can do anything at all you have push privileges. A revocation of push privileges would mean that your member checkouts would stop working completely. An anonymous checkout will always work, but only for reading. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Run grand-replace to update copyright
On 1/5/14 12:09 AM, Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote: I'm not a lawyer, but the year in a copyright notice is supposed to be the year of original publication. If you have a document first published in 2012 with a Copyright 2012 notice and you change the year to 2014 without making any other changes, [...] Looks like a mistake in the conversion script. `2012' should be changed to `2012-2014', of course. I don't think there is a mistake in the conversion script. I think this was a hypothetical, rather than an actual case where 2012 turned to 2014. grep 2014 0001-Run-grand-replace-issue-3765.patch | grep -v - returned nothing. And we see the following: carl@carl-lilydev ~/lilypond-git (dev/cds)$ grep 2013 0001-Run-grand-replace-issue-3765.patch -Copyright (c) 1996--2013, The LilyPond authors (lilypond.org) - Copyright (C) 2013 Aleksandr Andreev aleksandr.andr...@gmail.com + Copyright (C) 2013--2014 Aleksandr Andreev aleksandr.andr...@gmail.com - Copyright (C) 2013 Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org + Copyright (C) 2013--2014 Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org - Copyright (C) 2013 Aleksandr Andreev aleksandr.andr...@gmail.com + Copyright (C) 2013--2014 Aleksandr Andreev aleksandr.andr...@gmail.com - Copyright (C) 2013 Aleksandr Andreev aleksandr.andr...@gmail.com + Copyright (C) 2013--2014 Aleksandr Andreev aleksandr.andr...@gmail.com - Copyright (C) 2013 by Heikki Tauriainen g034...@welho.com. + Copyright (C) 2013--2014 by Heikki Tauriainen g034...@welho.com. - Copyright (C) 2013 Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org + Copyright (C) 2013--2014 Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org # Walter Garcia-Fontes walter.gar...@upf.edu, 2013. -# Copyright (C) 2013 Han-Wen Nienhuys, Jan Nieuwenhuizen +# Copyright (C) 2013--2014 Han-Wen Nienhuys, Jan Nieuwenhuizen -# Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc. +# Copyright (C) 2013--2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc. - Copyright (C) 2013 Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org + Copyright (C) 2013--2014 Mike Solomon m...@mikesolomon.org where 2013 properly changes to 2013--2014. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Run grand-replace to update copyright
I don't think there is a mistake in the conversion script. I think this was a hypothetical, rather than an actual case where 2012 turned to 2014. [...] Very good, thanks for checking. Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Run grand-replace to update copyright
On 1/5/14 12:00 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: According to Savannah, you still have push privileges (and I should be surprised if not). What did you try? What was the error message? Did you perhaps not use a member checkout? URL:http://savannah.gnu.org/git/?group=lilypond Yes, that was the problem. On my new VM, I did a git clone from the public address. After updating my ssh keys, and reconfiguring my repository, I can now push to staging. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Run grand-replace to update copyright
I'm not a lawyer, but the year in a copyright notice is supposed to be the year of original publication. If you have a document first published in 2012 with a Copyright 2012 notice and you change the year to 2014 without making any other changes, the original publication year is still 2012 but now the copyright notice is incorrect, which makes it legally equivalent to no notice at all (although copyright notices have little legal meaning anyway in Berne Convention countries). See here, for example: http://www.quizlaw.com/copyrights/what_happens_if_there_is_an_er.php It makes sense to bump the user-visible copyright notices of lilypond, convert-ly, and the like to whatever year those tools were last substantively changed, and to update the notices in individual files to reflect when they were last changed, but a global search-and-replace is probably a bad idea. -- Ben On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Carl Sorensen carl.d.soren...@gmail.comwrote: In response to issue 3765, I ran make grand-replace to update all copyright notices to 2014. It looks like I no longer have push privileges, so I couldn't push the patch to staging. Anyway, here's the patch, if somebody would please push it. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Run grand-replace to update copyright
I'm not a lawyer, but the year in a copyright notice is supposed to be the year of original publication. If you have a document first published in 2012 with a Copyright 2012 notice and you change the year to 2014 without making any other changes, [...] Looks like a mistake in the conversion script. `2012' should be changed to `2012-2014', of course. Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Run grand-replace to update copyright
On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 08:09:45AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote: I'm not a lawyer, but the year in a copyright notice is supposed to be the year of original publication. If you have a document first published in 2012 with a Copyright 2012 notice and you change the year to 2014 without making any other changes, [...] Looks like a mistake in the conversion script. `2012' should be changed to `2012-2014', of course. GNU maintainer's guide discourages that: http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html#Copyright-Notices However, it's also true that the guide says that copyright numbers should only be updated if there's a nontrivial change to the file. That's different from past lilypond policy. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Run grand-replace to update copyright
Looks like a mistake in the conversion script. `2012' should be changed to `2012-2014', of course. GNU maintainer's guide discourages that: http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html#Copyright-Notices What exactly does it discourage? However, it's also true that the guide says that copyright numbers should only be updated if there's a nontrivial change to the file. You've misread, I think: The guide doesn't say `file' but `package'. In general, this means that the copyright of *all* files of the LilyPond package[*] should be updated. Werner [*] However, not all files distributed with lilypond are also part of the package, cf. `texinfo.tex' or `mf2pt1.mp'. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Run grand-replace to update copyright
On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 08:42:59AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote: Looks like a mistake in the conversion script. `2012' should be changed to `2012-2014', of course. GNU maintainer's guide discourages that: http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html#Copyright-Notices What exactly does it discourage? Perhaps discourage is too strong a term: You can use a range (‘2008-2010’) instead of listing individual years (‘2008, 2009, 2010’) if and only if: 1) every year in the range, inclusive, really is a “copyrightable” year that would be listed individually; and 2) you make an explicit statement in a README file about this usage. However, it's also true that the guide says that copyright numbers should only be updated if there's a nontrivial change to the file. You've misread, I think: The guide doesn't say `file' but `package'. In general, this means that the copyright of *all* files of the LilyPond package[*] should be updated. I don't get the same impression from that page. It begins by saying You should maintain a proper copyright notice and a license notice in each nontrivial file in the package. [*] However, not all files distributed with lilypond are also part of the package, cf. `texinfo.tex' or `mf2pt1.mp'. Indeed. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
