Re: Proper Copyright Year in PHP files now an automated QA tasks

Hb wrote:

> [email protected] schrieb:
> 
>>Branch   : com.xaraya.qa.tests
>>
>>Changelog: 
>>  Proper Copyright Year in PHP files
>>  Positively checks all changed PHP files against the pattern @copyright[^\n]*<currentyear>[ ]
> 
> 
> This new check ensures a current year in all committed PHP files.
> 
> It is not needed and considered harmful to solely update the year without other
> codes changes in future.

I popped into freenode.net/#sflc for clarification, this is what I got.

[15:04] <Dracos> what is the proper format for copyright declarations?
[15:04] <Dracos> year range (2001-2009) or year list (2001, 2005, 2009)?
[15:06] <bkuhn> Dracos: IANAL, and I've different advice from different 
lawyers over the years.  The most recent advice I've heard is that 
either is fine as long as it is accurate.  Meaning, 2001-2009 is only 
accurate if you generated new copyrights in the work in 2001, 2002, 
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.  If you generated new 
copyrights only in 2001, 2005, 2009 -- as you example suggests -- you 
must list the years.
[15:07] <Dracos> what constitutes generation of a new copyright?
[15:08] <bkuhn> Dracos: that's a complicated question.  Certainly any 
substantial new work on the software would.  When something goes from 
being an uncopyrightable change to a copyrightable one is a question 
that's difficult (perhaps impossible) to answer in the general case.
[15:08] <bkuhn> Dracos: we have a white paper about that issue on our 
website: 
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/originality-requirements.html
[15:08] <Dracos> thx
[15:09] <bkuhn> BTW, I tend to list out the years them out no matter 
what, mainly out of habit, and because lawyers in the Free Software 
world back in the old days used to say you had to.  In recent years I've 
tried to find the origin of why people said you must list every year and 
could never use ranges (even if the ranges were accurate), and no one 
can see to substantiate why that advice had become commonplace.
[15:09] <bkuhn> s/can see/can seem/
[15:12] <aaronw> bkuhn, Dracos, here are some relevant quotes from the 
copyright office's circular on notices: "The use of a copyright notice 
is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial. 
Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of 
notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works."
[15:12] <aaronw> "The notice for visually perceptible copies should 
contain all the following three elements:
[15:12] <aaronw>          1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), 
or the word “Copyright,” or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and
[15:12] <aaronw>          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 us
[15:12] <aaronw> eful article; and
[15:12] <aaronw>          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.
[15:12] <aaronw> "
[15:13] <Dracos> thx
[15:14] <bkuhn> aaronw: it seems to be encouraging people not to add 
their own copyright notice when the create a derivative.
[15:14] <bkuhn> Or am I mistreading (2)?
[15:15] <aaronw> bkuhn: no, that is saying that when you make a 
derivative, the year should be the date you published that derivative.
[15:15] <bkuhn> Ah, ok I misread.
[15:15] <bkuhn> I see.
[15:16] <bkuhn> Then, regarding (2) as it relates to software, since 
nearly every change made to the software creates a new "derivative work" 
that "incorporat[es] previously published material", you probably want 
to add a new notice for every change by each person in a given year
[15:16] <bkuhn> That's what most of the projects I work on do; it's good 
to see that's basically what the statute suggests you do.
[15:17] <bkuhn> (Well, I should say "most projects I work in that are 
careful about their copyright inventory", which is a proper subset sadly.)
[15:17] <aaronw> bkuhn, not a statute, just a circular.  But I also 
think this wasn't written with anything like free software in mind, and 
doesn't actually contemplate the preservation of prior authors' notices.
[15:17] <bkuhn> aaronw: right, that's the point.  The licenses generally 
REQUIRE the preservation of prior author notices.
[15:18] <bkuhn> Meanwhile, the circular suggests you put a name/year for 
each derivative published.
[15:18] <bkuhn> Which of course makes the copyright notice list hairy, 
but it's a good thing really.
[15:18] <bkuhn> because it makes sure developers get credit for what 
years they did work.
[15:18] <aaronw> bkuhn, exactly.  so the interaction between the 
recommended practice of the PTO and the requirements of the license 
dictates the form you cite.
[15:19] <bkuhn> s/PTO/Copyright Office/ right?
[15:21] <aaronw> bkuhn, right, sorry.
[15:21] <bkuhn> np.
_______________________________________________
Xaraya_devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://xaraya.com/mailman/listinfo/xaraya_devel