Re: copyright holders

Mike Tremaine wrote:
> Willi Mann wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> There are two things that are in a very bad state in logwatch: The
>> listed copyright holders in the scripts and the file License in the
>> source tarball.
>>
>> Problem 1 is that some scripts have no copyright notice at all, some
>> state "were written by ..." (this is not a proper copyright notice), and
>> only a few have proper copyright notices.
>>
>> Problem 2 is that the file License only lists the X11 license, despite
>> the fact that at least three files are distributed under the BSD
>> License. The list of copyright holders is also incomplete, but that's
>> more part of Problem 1,
>>
>> ##
>> - How does a proper copyright notice look like?
>>
>> Copyright (c) <year1>{,<yearn>} <person>
>>
>> (The unicode character for a "c" in in a circle would be better, but I'm
>> not sure if all people can read it)
>>
>> A hint about the applicable license should also be added, particularly
>> as there are scripts not licensed under the X11 license.
>>
>> - When should a copyright notice be added to a script?
>>
>> Whenever someone contributes non-trivial (copyrightable to be exact)
>> changes.
>>
>> - Are proper copyright notices really necessary?
>>
>> Yes, because a license can only be granted by declared copyright
>> holders. Contributions of undeclared copyright holders are thus not
>> distributable. See also [1]
>> ##
>>
>> I have started to look at the various files and marked those that are
>> properly copyrighted by renaming them to file.fixed. [2] (Please apply
>> attached patches to my scripts)
>>
>> What needs to be done is to ask every author and contributor [3] of each
>> script when he created the contribution and if he is also the copyright
>> holder [4], and also if the copyright holder agrees to distribute his
>> work under Logwatch's license.
>>
>> Who of you is willing to help? I can't do this on my own as I have to
>> meet some deadlines in the next few weeks, and I have some examinations.
>>
>> Willi
>>
>> [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-pkgcopyright
>> [2] http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/pkg-logwatch/trunk/copyright-status/
>> [3] Of course only when the patch is copyrightable.
>> [4] author and copyright holder may differ, especially if the work was
>> written as part of an employment
>>
> 
> 
> I know this came up before and Bjorn had done a run through of the files 
> and sent out some emails for a few of the problem scripts. Make sure you 
> check the CVS versions to see if anything has changed vs the Debian 
> release version. But you are right and we do need to get this all in order.

Here is what I believe is the current state:

- If the file has a license defined in it, then that license applies. 
If not, then the text in the "License" file applies.
- The general license listed in the "License" file is commonly referred 
to as the "X11 License," the "Permissive MIT License," or simply "MIT 
License."
- The only other license type used in any of the Logwatch files is 
commonly referred to as the "BSD License".
- Both of the above license types are considered "open-source," are used 
by many other "open-source" programs, and have been endorsed by 
"open-source" organizations.
- At some point in the past, we did have some files under other 
licenses.  Those authors were contacted, and requested to change their 
licenses to the terms listed in the "License" file.  All authors consented.
- If code was submitted for inclusion into Logwatch with a copyright 
notice, then the copyright notice was retained, and is embedded in the 
file submitted.

It is not clear to me why a copyright notice needs to be included, if 
the original author of the code did not indicate one should be included. 
  As a matter of fact, if you want to renounce a copyright, you should 
not assert one to begin with.  In addition, I don't see any advantage to 
asserting the copyright to a work that is held under either of the two 
types of licenses that are used in Logwatch, as both licenses explicitly 
remove any restrictions for using the software.  Incidentally, the 
"written by" construct you mentioned was not intended to grant any 
rights, but merely to acknowledge, give credit, and thank the 
contributor. [And that's not the function of a copyright - if you write 
proprietary code (not "open source") for an employer, the employer 
usually owns the copyright, not the author.]

Also, if any contributor of code feels that the current license is not 
appropriate for the code submitted, please indicate so.  And we 
certainly want to hear if any of the code submitted was derived from 
non-"open-source" and non-"public domain" code, and Logwatch cannot 
grant the permissions listed in the "License" file for that code.

P.S. I am not a lawyer.