Sylvain Beucler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tapota :
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:00:27PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>> Sylvain Beucler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tapota :
>> > The method from maintain.texi has the advantage of being validated by
>> > a lawyer specialized in international copyright laws, so I didn't
>> > really try to figure out what would look more appealing or ugly, what
>> > would give more or less information - I just use this documented
>> > standard, just as it is.
>>
>> Sure, but did the lawyer speciliazed in international copyright laws
>> invalidated the other format (which contained more or less exactly the
>> same info - the only clear difference is between putting every years
>> or not, which seems not so important in fine).
>
> Let's put it another way: was the format you use validated?
Apple (which probably hired many more lawyers than the FSF USA will
ever do) have no problem with the 1999-2003 notation:
"Portions Copyright (c) 1999-2003 Apple Computer, Inc. All Rights
Reserved"
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apsl-2.0.php>
Intel do the same:
"Copyright (c) 1996-2000 Intel Corporation
All rights reserved."
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/intel-open-source-license.php>
The NASA asks for:
"Copyright " {YEAR} United States Government as represented by
______ _________________________. All Rights Reserved."
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/nasa1.3.php>
There are numerous others examples (W3C, X.net etc...).
There's only one thing that seems unusual in Savane headers is the
fact that the (c) is not just along the word copyright. But is it
worth reviewing every files? I would say no, but if you feel it would
make a difference, that change is no big deal.
>> Cosmetics does not necessarily invalidate a document from a legal
>> point of view, as long as it is unequivocal, as matter of
>> facts. Since, anyway, we are in an international context (meaning: a
>> messy mixture of national contexts), many others questions would arise
>> if we were about to question such aspects. Frankly, for a program like
>> Savane, was matters is that copyright info is here, with the date,
>> name, relevant address. And if we can make it the easier way to read,
>> go for it, because if someday we were to sue someone regarding to
>> savane, I doubt this issue would make any difference.
>
> If you think that we can chose a notation for the copyright notices,
> then ok. As far as I am concerned, I don't think so, just like I
> wouldn't try to write my own license.
>
> Now, if you still want to use your notation, I'll follow it for
> consistency.
I do not think a copyright notice is comparable to a license. A
copyright notice does not defines how the copyright it be handled.
The following document is I guess what we need in this discussion:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc
As you can read there (and the argument "validated by a lawyer" does
not stand against this state website) "� 2002 John Doe" is a
perfectly valid copyright notice.
What matters is to have
1. The symbol � (the letter C in a circle), or the word
"Copyright," or the abbreviation "Copr."; and
2. The year of first publication of the work. In the case of
compilations or derivative works incorporating previously
published material, the year date of first publication of the
compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date
may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work,
with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or
on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls,
toys, or any useful article; and
3. The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an
abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a
generally known alternative designation of the owner.
I think we have these three things in all the copyright notice we have
here. I do not even know what was the original template that led to
the current notation in Savane.
One can also argue that this is USA-centric. Well, what we do here is
anyway USA-centric. There's no such thing as copyright in France
anyway.
So I suggest to keep thing as they are, or, at most, to put the (c)
along the word copyright like it is done frequently (these are anyway
redundant). But adding non ending dates and this kind of stuff seems
just overcomplicating things, not improvising lisibility.
--
Mathieu Roy
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| General Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ |
| Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/ |
| Not a native english speaker: |
| http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________
Savane-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/savane-dev
