On 5/8/20 1:10 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote: > I think the year of first publication still has some use as it disambiguates > which version of copyright law applies.
The "year of first publication" applies per copyrightable thing, so if the file has multiple changes, you'd need multiple years. For example, imagine you had a book written in 1900 with changes made in 2000. If you say "Copyright 1900", it looks like it is now public domain, but it's not. This is more-or-less the reason for years in copyright statements. Essentially all computer code is in the modern era of copyright. The copyright terms are all so long now that you can basically assume that code is copyrighted for as long as it remains relevant to use. And for an actively maintained project, something is changing every year, so the project _as a whole_ would always be under the current copyright regime anyway even if the terms were shorter. So the years have essentially no practical value; you can just assume it is "copyright this year". If terms were shorter _and_ someone wanted to pick out portions of the code for reuse elsewhere once the term ended _and_ the copyright statements were perfectly maintained, they might in theory be able to do so. But even if the copyright statements were perfectly maintained, you'd still have the issue that routine refactoring, churn, and cleanup work would mean that most files would have a recent copyright (if not the current year), so you'd still have to hit the VCS to determine the history on the code you want to reuse (e.g. some core algorithm). So even in that scenario, the years don't seem to help. -- Richard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
