Thank you so much Ingo. Things are very clear.  :-)

On Aug 5, 2017 8:58 AM, "Ingo Schwarze" <> wrote:

> Hi Siju,
> Siju George wrote on Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 06:50:12AM +0530:
> > In a code repository should the licence wording be on every file ?
> Best practice is:
>  1. To have at least one line containing "Copyright (c) ..."
>     at the top of each file containing copyrightable content.
>  2. Each author (natural person, NOT legal entity like corporations
>     or foundations) who made copyrightable contributions to the
>     file of which at least parts are still contained in the
>     file must be mentioned on such a line.
>     If an author did transfer their economic rights (which doesn't
>     really make much sense for ISC or BSD 2-clause licensed code,
>     but nonetheless, it is occasionally done), you can list the
>     legal entity that acquired the economic rights, but then it
>     becomes important to add a line, below the Copyright notice,
>     reading, for example:
>       Parts of this file were written by (name of natural person)
>       for (name of legal entity).
>     The reason is that the actual authors retain some inalienable
>     rights, even when working for hire or contract, and the right
>     to be know of as the author is one of these rights that can
>     neither be sold nor be given away.
>  3. Each Copyright line must contain one year number, separated
>     with commas, for each year in which that author made copyrightable
>     additions to the file that are still present in the file.  Ranges
>     of years separated with dashes are only acceptable if that
>     author also made such contributions in each of the years between
>     the endpoints of the range.  Usually, only use ranges on lines
>     that would otherwise become too long.
> Look at /usr/src/usr.bin/mandoc/mdoc_term.c for an example
> demonstrating all these rules.
> The full text of the license should follow this Copyright notice
> in each file.
> That said, from a legal standpoint, it is sufficient to have one
> license for each Work, so having one Copyright notice for the whole
> Work (e.g., program or package) is legally sufficient, too.  But
> that is not a particularly good idea for several reasons:
>  1. It is less clear and can cause doubt as to which files are
>     covered by the central Copyright notice and license.
>  2. It is very hard to maintain correctly.  Care is already needed
>     when maintaining the notices in individual files, and maintaining
>     a central notice correctly is even harder because it is no
>     longer even clear in which files to look for the contributions
>     of the various authors.
>  3. In practice, you will probably sooner or later include files
>     from third parties that are available under free licenses.  In
>     that case, leaving the Copyright notices and licenses in place
>     in those included files is usually required by the third party
>     licenses, and those licenses often differs slightly from the
>     one you are using for your own Work.  So you end up with some
>     files with Copyright notices and licenses and some without,
>     which exacerbates the problem explained in item 1.
>  4. People maintaining other software will occasionally pick files
>     from your software and copy them to their own package.  If you
>     failed to add a Copyright notice and license to a file that
>     gets picked in this way, there is a higher risk that the person
>     taking the file forgets to copy your Copyright notice and license
>     into the file before redistributing it.  And worse, how is that
>     person even supposed to figure out who, and during which years,
>     contributed to that particular file?  Basically, that poor soul
>     will be forced to analyze the complete VCS commit history for
>     the file and reconstruct the Copyright notice from scratch.
> > Or just in a file named "Licence" in the root folder ?
> Best practice is to do that *in addition*, because with many files,
> it can be hard to figure out the full list of Copyright holders and
> applicable licenses, and also because you almost certainly want to
> state *somewhere* which the preferred license is for new contributions
> to the project.
> For an example of such an additional central file demonstrating
> many useful features of such a central file, refer to
> Oh, and very important:  Never add any Copyright or license goo to
> the displayed text of any manual page or the stdout or stderr output
> of any program.  Copyright notices and licenses belong into the
> source code (of programs and documentation), *NEVER UNDER ANY
> CIRCUMSTANCES* into any text displayed to the user.  I regard
> displaying Copyright notices or licenses to the user as exceedingly
> impolite, because you are basically slapping the user into the face
> with this sneer: i value your time so little that i encumber the
> output i show to you with irrelevant text, with text that i know
> for sure you will *not* need each and every time you run the program
> or open the documentation.
> Yours,
>   Ingo

Reply via email to