> On 13 June 2018 at 20:28, Rodney W. Grimes <free...@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net>
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Rodney W. Grimes <
> > > > > @@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
> > > > > /*-
> > > > > - * Copyright (c) 2017 Netflix, Inc
> > > > > - * All rights reserved.
> > > > > + * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause-FreeBSD
> > > > > *
> > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2018 Netflix
> > > >
> > > > You moved a copyright forward, that is not proper to do.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thought it was. I honestly don't care where (nor does my employer), so if
> > > you want to tweak it to be more conforming, be my guest.
> > You can add a new date to the end of a list, but you should always
> > retain the oldest date, and many opinions are that all dates should
> > be retained unless they are continuous.
> Do you have a citation for this, Rod? I ask because my impression was that
> although it has often been done, and at one point may legitimately have
> been required, it is not any longer so. I'd love to have a concrete source
> on this, though.
One place to start is circ15:
Fundemental principle of copyright protections duration are from -first-
date of publication, that is covered in USC 17. If you miss represent
that date in your copyright your copyright can be held invalid.
The real smoking gun is:
17 USC 401 b (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 text matter,
if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards,
stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles; and
The interpretation of compilation or derivative does open a grey
area here in software, and I can see how one might consider a
patch to create a derived work.
There is case law that putting a date later than first publication
appears as an attempt to move the duration of your protection
to be longer than it really should be.
At 2202.2(A) Advantages to Using Notice on Post-Berne Works
"It identifies the year of first publication,
which may be used to determine the term of copyright
protection in the case of an anonymous work,
a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire."
Much of our work, and in this case of Netflix and these
files, they are defanitly works made for hire, so this
applies and identifying first date of publication is
There is also:
At 2203.1 Works First Published Between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989
This Applies to some of our code, as it has First publications
in these date ranges, boils down to even though Berne says you dont
have to have a notice, if you first published the work in this time
frame you had to have a notice then, and you still have to have a
Yes, Disney and others have done fun stuff with copyrights on *movies*,
but that has other complications doing with re-mixes and all sorts of other
things that make it possible for them to claim it is a new creative
work, not just a revision of an old work.
I could re research the case law if you really want more.
> > It would be much simpler for you to commit:
> > - * Copyright (C) 2018 Netflix
> > + * Copyright (C) 2017-2018 Netflix
> > Than for me to get approval: bde, phk.
> > Thanks.
> > Rod
> > >
> > > > Not sure about dropping the , Inc either.
> > >
> > >
> > > Doesn't matter. Different Netflix committers do different things and I
> > was
> > > trying to move towards uniformity.
> > Ok
> > > Warner
> > --
> > Rod Grimes
> > rgri...@freebsd.org
Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"