Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:03:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Juli Mallett <juli@northcloak.com>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@freebsd.org>, Warner Losh <imp@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r335091 - head/sbin/nvmecontrol Message-ID: <201806140603.w5E634gG043236@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfpG0i%2BsRTi-808_mrjb382daGog=58SCOnJ5otWFEoYuw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> So I found this > > https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf > > and it states two things: > > "A notice consists of three elements that generally appear as a single > continuous statement: ? The copyright symbol ? (or for phonorecords, the > symbol ? ); the word ?copyright?; or the abbreviation ?copr.?; ? The year > of first publication of the work; and ? The name of the copyright owner." > > But this only required for works published before March 1, 1989. It later > states: > > "Copyright notice is optional for unpublished works, foreign works, or > works published on or after March 1, 1989. When notice is optional, > copyright owners can use any form of notice they wish." > > The project wishes date ranges. :) > > But since we're not lawyers... https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap2200/ch2200-notice.pdf 2205.1(A) Year of Publication .. .. The year of first publication followed by multiple year dates ( e.g. , 1981, 1982, 1983) .. Though I have seen it commonly used in practive date-date, I have not actally seen that in any of the actual Copyright office publications, nor have I ever seen any case law that makes it bad to do. I am fine with date ranges, I have fine with lists, I am not fine with altering that "first publication date". I am also a bit concerned on the treating each commit as a "derived" work. > > Warner > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:37 PM, Juli Mallett <juli@northcloak.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 13 June 2018 at 22:35, Rodney W. Grimes <freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net > > > wrote: > > > >> > On 13 June 2018 at 20:28, Rodney W. Grimes < > >> freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > 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: > >> https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf > >> > >> 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. > >> > > > > Per your quote: > > "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." > > > > It seems to plainly suggest listing one year, not several years, and > > certainly not by some convoluted scheme. > > > > We're not lawyers. I'm not sure this is a useful discussion. I'd love a > > citation for the multiple-years scheme you describe, which does not seem to > > be in USC 17. > > > > > > 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. > >> > >> https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap2200/ch2200-notice.pdf > >> 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 > >> important. > >> > >> 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 > >> notice now. > >> > >> 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 > >> > > rgrimes@freebsd.org > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> -- > >> Rod Grimes > >> rgrimes@freebsd.org > >> > > > > -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201806140603.w5E634gG043236>