Vagrant Cascadian on Sat, 21 Feb 2026 14:48:09 -0800:
Annoying though it may be, I believe different jurisdictions
recognize © vs. Copyright... so seems best to have both?
<https://reuse.software/spec-3.3/#format-of-copyright-notices>
lists
© Example Corporation <https://corp.example.com>
as a valid Copyright Notice. The three options of
‹SPDX-FileCopyrightText›, ‹Copyright›, and ‹©› are given, and only
‹SPDX-FileCopyrightText› is recommended.
According to US Copyright Law before the adoption of the Berne
Convention in 1989 on March 1, ‹©›, the word ‹Copyright› and the
abbreviation ‹Copr.› have equal significance.[0] In countries
that adopted the Berne Convention—including US—a copyright notice
is not required for copyright to be established, only in the case
of the defendant claiming innocent infringement in the case of
having access to a copy bearing a notice of copyright.[1]
IANAL.
^ [0] 17 U.S. Code § 401 - Notice of copyright: Visually
perceptible copies, (b)
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/401#b>
^ [1] 17 U.S. Code § 401 (d)
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/401#d>
-- λx.x (she/they)
