Re: Oct and Nov 2012

On 31/10/12 14:13, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>>      At the time, I believe Eben also directed us to list each year to
>>      which a copyright notice applies *individually*; apparently, year
>>      ranges lack the legal standing of such a list, (but again, the UK
>>      copyright service advice contradicts this).
>
> We've not assigned copyright until recently.  Therefore 2012 alone
> works.  Remember Public Domain is the absence of copyright.

That's not strictly correct.  It means that the author has elected to 
*waive* rights granted under copyright law; such waiver does not alter 
the status of the work itself as "copyrightable", at publication time.

Note that it's a subtle distinction: the copyright notice should list 
each year in which a "copyrightable" edition of the work was published, 
irrespective of whether the author chose to actually assert copyright at 
the time, (at least as I interpret the guidelines, but IANAL).

As a further note, the FSF have now modified their guidelines, to accept 
a range of years, *provided* there was a separate publication of an 
edition of the copyrightable work, in each and every one of the years in 
the contiguous range.

> And our license isn't really GPL now is it?

No, it's effectively MIT or X-Consortium.  However, this is irrelevant, 
because the laws under which these disparate licences are interpreted 
are the same; the requirements for formulating a legally acceptable 
statement of copyright are independent of the choice of licence.

-- 
Regards,
Keith.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct