On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 05:14:53PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > 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.
Ok, I admit that copyright notices is not as formal as I though :) > >> 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 I just wonder why maintain.texi carefully distinguish the publication date, and the date when the published work was finished. Maybe that's for international copyright laws. > 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. I'd say Berne-centric, no? The same document says that copyright notices are not needed (I suppose, because copyright automatically granted). > There's no such thing as copyright in France anyway. Do you mean copyright notices? The CeCILL (so-called french-law-compatible free software license) recommands using copyright notices as well, but maybe they had international in mind for this particular matter. > 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. Fine. -- Sylvain
