[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS-SVN] r30246 - grass/trunk/lib/gis

Ivan Shmakov ivan at theory.asu.ru
Tue Feb 19 13:32:34 EST 2008


>>>>> Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com> writes:

 >> could we conditionalize the year somehow on the VERSON file?

 >>> -       fprintf(fp, "# COPYRIGHT:    (C) 2007 GRASS Development Team/%s\n", G_whoami());
 >>> +       fprintf(fp, "# PURPOSE:      \n");
 >>> +       fprintf(fp, "# COPYRIGHT:    (C) 2008 GRASS Development Team/%s\n", G_whoami());

 > Or just omit it.

 > AFAIK, a specific notice of copyright isn't particularly meaningful
 > any more. It used to be significant in the US prior to adoption of
 > the Berne convention, when works had to be registered and copyright
 > had to be explicitly asserted. Nowadays, it only matters insofar as
 > it affects the ability to claim statutory damages if the work is
 > registered.

	The notices like this are very convenient for the ones
	``curious'' of the conditions under which the file can be used.

	They're of exceptional value for the free software, since they
	explicitly allow the code to be modified and distributed.
	Without such a notice (either in COPYING, or in the file), the
	file cannot be either modified or distributed at all.

	Since the files are allowed to be copied between free software
	projects freely, a mess could arise, unless each file bears a
	copyright notice.  As an example, please consider the HDF-EOS
	source.  Does it qualify for the free software?

 > Also, "GRASS Development Team" isn't a legal entity; and even if it
 > was, it would only hold the copyright on work created by its "agents"
 > (employees, contracted members etc), not by freelance contributors
 > (unless they explicitly assign rights).

 > And the use of G_whoami() is rather dubious. Aside from whether the
 > person running the command with the --script option ends up having
 > rights in the finished script, the result may just be "root" or
 > "user501".

	Both points sound reasonable to me.

 >>> so unconditionally specifying the current year would not be a good
 >>> choice. But I have to admit I don't really understand the full
 >>> significance of the copyright date.

 >> It effectively sets the copyright expiration date.  IANAL, however.

 > I don't know about computer code specifically, but written works
 > normally expire a fixed period (between 50 and 80 years) after the
 > author's death.

	Looks like the terms may vary from country to country:

--cut: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright--
    Copyright subsists for a variety of lengths in different
    jurisdictions.  The length of the term can depend on several
    factors, including the type of work (e. g. musical composition,
    novel), whether the work has been published or not, and whether the
    work was created by an individual or a corporation.  In most of the
    world, the default length of copyright is the life of the author
    plus either 50 or 70 years.  In the United States, the term for most
    existing works is a fixed number of years after the date of creation
    or publication. Under most countries' laws, copyrights expire at the
    end of the calendar year in question.
--cut: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright--

	So, the date may be important.

	Doesn't the law require it to be present in order for the
	copyright notice to be considered valid?

 > All things considered, I suggest printing out the "keys" ("AUTHOR(S)"
 > etc) and leaving the rest of the line blank for the author to fill it
 > manually.

	Sounds reasonable as well.



More information about the grass-dev mailing list