On Thursday 12 July 2012 21:29:44 Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Michael D. Setzer II wrote: > >> >> 630c630 > >> >> < "Copyright (C) 1998-2012 Erik Andersen, Rob > >> >> Landley, Denys Vlasenko\n" > >> >> --- > >> >>> "Copyright (C) 1998-2011 Erik Andersen, Rob > >> >> Landley, Denys Vlasenko\n" > >> >> Took a little searching to find which file it was in. I'm assuming > >> >> it should be 2012, but there might be a reason it is changed, or > >> >> might just be it is to minor of an issue? > > > On Thursday 12 July 2012 03:16:32 Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > >> We should probably be careful here in that notice to make sure it's > >> abundantly accurate. Specifically, it would be better if we were > >> clearer about the years. For example, I am quite sure Erik hasn't > >> made any contributions in 2012, and maybe not in 2011 either. > >> > >> It should probably be something like: > >> "Copyright (C) 1998-<SOME_YEAR> Erik Andersen, > >> (C) SOME_YEAR-SOME_YEAR Rob Landley, (C) SOME_YEAR-2012 Denys Vlasenko." > > Tito wrote at 01:36 (EDT): > > maybe "Copyright (C) 1998-2012 by the Busybox project developers" and > > then adding a full list to the source package and to the website could > > be a solution. > > There is a problem with this, although I don't think it's the concern > Alain raised is correct (more on that below). > > The main value in having a good copyright notice *in the binary* is, as > I mentioned: when binary distributions occur, it's slightly easier in an > enforcement action to trivially identify that the copyright holders' > rights have been infringed. I've suggested an alternative below that > would probably serve this purpose.
Hi, it is also trivial to change this line if you have enough criminal energy ;-) > But, the main problem with the idea above "The BusyBox Project > Developers" isn't a legal entity per se. BusyBox is part of the > Conservancy, which does hold a few copyrights that have been assigned to > it by a few developers, so we *could* list Conservancy in the list if we > want. But, that aside, listing a copyright notice that is a name that > is *not* a real legal corporate entity or individual is pointless. > > Therefore, my suggestion now is to change this: > "Copyright (C) 1998-2012 Erik Andersen, Rob Landley, Denys Vlasenko\n" > "and others. Licensed under GPLv2.\n" > "See source distribution for full notice.\n" > to this: > "BusyBox is copyrighted by many authors between 1998-2012.\n" > "Licensed under GPLv2. See source distribution for detailed\n" > "copyright notices.\n" > This is ok for me if the lawyers ack it. > That may be the best option, really. What do people think? > > The trade-off here is really down to bytes that end up in the binary. > Ideally, we'd list all the copyright notices that Michael Setzer found > with his sed script, but that's 400 lines of copyright notices and > that's surely too much for the binary. I would add this cleaned up list to source tough. > Ultimately, though, I think it's up to the community to decide what key > copyright holders we want to list in the binary officially. > > Alain Mouette wrote: > >>> This is not good. In case of a court dispute, all copyright owners > >>> have to be present. So if you want the copyright do be good for > >>> something, it has to be nominal! > > Alain, I'm not sure I understand your point. Any given copyright holder > can enforce the license -- Denys, Erik, and Conservancy together as > copyright holders do this often without involvement of other copyright > holders. Having more copyright holders involved in GPL enforcement is > good, and if other copyright holders want to be involved, they should of > course contact me and I can get you all setup (the advantage to this is > you also get direct input into the process of how Conservancy does > enforcement). > > However, it's not required that all copyright holders be present to act. > As a practical matter, you need enough copyright holders present such > that your copyrights can't be trivially written out by a GPL violator, > but with Conservancy, Erik, and Denys, we meet that bar easily already > on BusyBox. > > Meanwhile, it's also not required that the notices appear perfectly in > the copyright material, either. Notices are helpful for the reasons I > explained above, but they aren't mandatory. > > As usual, IANAL, TINLA, etc. > _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
