While my personal preference is the same as yours Ben (going with no date
in the header) I think this is the best middle ground. And anything that
moves us away from the constant burden on committers and contributors to
update the headers when it has no tangible benefit is a win.
So what is still unclear to me is what changes (if any) will be required if
any to the existing headers. Someone correct me if I am wrong but if we’re
going with just file creation date then we should be good? And the only
remaining work will be to document the practice?
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:06 PM Ben Caradoc-Davies <b...@transient.nz> wrote:
> Jody,
>
> I am happy to proceed with file creation/contribution date despite my
> small reservations. I think that file creation/contribution date is the
> option that has consensus at this time; it will solve the date
> maintenance overhead problem that is the reason for this change.
>
> I move that you ask OSGeo to obtain legal advice on this matter. I see
> this as a low priority but I think it would be nice to get some advice
> for long-term guidance.
>
> And thanks to everyone for their contributions to this thread. It has
> clarified my views on copyright headers and and changed my views on
> @author tags.
>
> Kind regards,
> Ben.
>
> On 21/05/16 12:06, Jody Garnett wrote:
> > OSGeo is able to obtain legal advice, as PMC representative I can make
> that
> > request on behalf of our project. As one of the early projects in OSGeo
> > other projects will be following our lead.
> >
> > To close this one out I would be content to update our policy to be file
> > creation/contribution date - and if you wish to make the motion Ben we
> can
> > formally ask OSGeo to obtain legal advice (they may do so directly or via
> > reaching out to another foundation with legal staff).
> > --
> > Jody Garnett
> >
> > On 20 May 2016 at 13:50, Ben Caradoc-Davies <b...@transient.nz> wrote:
> >
> >> Many stackexchange comments on common law copyright and registration
> >> relate to the US prior its accession to the Berne convention (1989).
> Please
> >> see later comments and this:
> >> https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/copyright
> >>
> >> Furthermore, and I am not a lawyer, can you copyright an individual
> source
> >> code file? Is it not like the page of a book?
> >>
> >> As this is an OSGeo project, and OSGeo is incorporated in the United
> >> States, we should give consideration to US law.
> >>
> >> Jody, does OSGeo have a policy on whether dates are required in
> copyright
> >> headers? Does copyright reside in a single source code file or GeoTools
> as
> >> a work as a whole? Is OSGeo able to obtain legal advice these matters?
> >>
> >> Kind regards,
> >> Ben.
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Ben Caradoc-Davies <b...@transient.nz>
> Director
> Transient Software Limited <http://transient.nz/>
> New Zealand
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
> untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> _______________________________________________
> GeoTools-Devel mailing list
> GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-Devel mailing list
GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
