Regarding copyrights for source code files, some of the files in the codebase are incorrectly copyrighted...
The trick is that for it to be legal, the name must be a legal entity (i.e., a real person's real name). So for example, 'The Inkscape Project' would not be a legal copyright holder, unless we did the paperwork to incorporate it, paperwork to assign our copyrights over, etc.
I'm not certain about pseudonyms, but would assume those are similarly not valid, unless you legally registered that name or something.
I doubt we'll ever get into legal trouble, although you never know. But more importantly, if other projects start reusing our code, they may be more strict about copyrights being properly set.
Anyway, not a major issue but probably worth some thought.
Bryce
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:15:52PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
the name must be a legal entity (i.e., a real person's real name).
Let's say "for example" rather than "that is". E.g. for my work, "Peter Moulder" would be incorrect, but "Monash University" (or whatever the legal name of my employer is) is correct.
pjrm.
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Peter Moulder wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:15:52PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
the name must be a legal entity (i.e., a real person's real name).
Let's say "for example" rather than "that is". E.g. for my work, "Peter Moulder" would be incorrect, but "Monash University" (or whatever the legal name of my employer is) is correct.
Yes, that's a good point. So the copyright messages for Sun, Ximian, etc. are correct.
Bryce
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 01:15, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Regarding copyrights for source code files, some of the files in the codebase are incorrectly copyrighted...
The trick is that for it to be legal, the name must be a legal entity (i.e., a real person's real name). So for example, 'The Inkscape Project' would not be a legal copyright holder, unless we did the paperwork to incorporate it, paperwork to assign our copyrights over, etc.
I'm not certain about pseudonyms, but would assume those are similarly not valid, unless you legally registered that name or something.
Pseudonyms are fine for copyright registration, and so presumably also for notices (which aren't necessary anyway). http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl101.html
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, David Turner wrote:
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 01:15, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Regarding copyrights for source code files, some of the files in the codebase are incorrectly copyrighted...
The trick is that for it to be legal, the name must be a legal entity (i.e., a real person's real name). So for example, 'The Inkscape Project' would not be a legal copyright holder, unless we did the paperwork to incorporate it, paperwork to assign our copyrights over, etc.
I'm not certain about pseudonyms, but would assume those are similarly not valid, unless you legally registered that name or something.
Pseudonyms are fine for copyright registration, and so presumably also for notices (which aren't necessary anyway). http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl101.html
Ah, cool, that solves that problem. Do the pseudonyms need to be registered or is it enough simply to use it?
Bryce
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 13:20, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, David Turner wrote:
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 01:15, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Regarding copyrights for source code files, some of the files in the codebase are incorrectly copyrighted...
The trick is that for it to be legal, the name must be a legal entity (i.e., a real person's real name). So for example, 'The Inkscape Project' would not be a legal copyright holder, unless we did the paperwork to incorporate it, paperwork to assign our copyrights over, etc.
I'm not certain about pseudonyms, but would assume those are similarly not valid, unless you legally registered that name or something.
Pseudonyms are fine for copyright registration, and so presumably also for notices (which aren't necessary anyway). http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl101.html
Ah, cool, that solves that problem. Do the pseudonyms need to be registered or is it enough simply to use it?
There's no way to register names. If you want to register copyright, see the instructions at that site (you want Form TX). I recommend it, although I don't know what the procedure is in cases like this, where there are multiple authors.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:20:10AM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Ah, cool, that solves that problem. Do the pseudonyms need to be registered or is it enough simply to use it?
IANAL. They're valid if you are clearly the user of the name. We know "pjrm" to be who he is, so that "alias" would stand up, AFAIK.
(Too many acronyns! I feel like I need to include some more AFK or LOL or ROFL now...)
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 16:33, Kees Cook wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:20:10AM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Ah, cool, that solves that problem. Do the pseudonyms need to be registered or is it enough simply to use it?
IANAL. They're valid if you are clearly the user of the name. We know "pjrm" to be who he is, so that "alias" would stand up, AFAIK.
Yes, although there are some differences when copyrighting a work under your legal name versus under a pseudonym.
The primary wrinkle with pseudonyms is that the length of the copyright term for them a straight 95 years (as it is for corporate entities), rather than the normal 70 years after death for individuals.
[ I need to check my exact figures, but the general rule holds ]
-mental
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 22:16, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 16:33, Kees Cook wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:20:10AM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Ah, cool, that solves that problem. Do the pseudonyms need to be registered or is it enough simply to use it?
IANAL. They're valid if you are clearly the user of the name. We know "pjrm" to be who he is, so that "alias" would stand up, AFAIK.
Yes, although there are some differences when copyrighting a work under your legal name versus under a pseudonym.
The primary wrinkle with pseudonyms is that the length of the copyright term for them a straight 95 years (as it is for corporate entities), rather than the normal 70 years after death for individuals.
"If the author is not identified in the records of the Copyright Office, the term of copyright is 95 years from publication of the work, or 120 years from its creation, whichever term expires first. If the author’s identity is later revealed in the records of the Copyright Office, the copyright term then becomes the author’s life plus 70 years. "
But I doubt anyone will be using any of our code in 95 years.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, David Turner wrote:
[...]
"If the author is not identified in the records of the Copyright Office, the term of copyright is 95 years from publication of the work, or 120 years from its creation, whichever term expires first. If the author�s identity is later revealed in the records of the Copyright Office, the copyright term then becomes the author�s life plus 70 years. "
But I doubt anyone will be using any of our code in 95 years.
Or even 50 years, which honestly should be more than enough for anyone.
With improvements, refactoring, platform changes, language changes and toolkit changes how much of todays code will likely still be in the codebase in even 14 or 28 years time?
http://creativecommons.org/projects/founderscopyright/
Given the turnover of code i think even with as a little as a 14 year copyright would be more than enough for something as dynamic as a software project. Perhaps some of you who also consider current copyright to be excessive will consider it for your contributions.
Perhaps someone who has been using emacs since time immemorial will tell me that 14 is not that long and that they would find a version from that long ago to be useful?
- Alan
participants (6)
-
Alan Horkan -
Bryce Harrington -
David Turner -
Kees Cook -
MenTaLguY -
Peter Moulder