Yo Richard!
On Fri, 8 May 2020 14:34:31 -0500
Richard Laager wrote:
> 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
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
s at Amazon on
> > software license issues. The MAGA have deemed that the current
> > copyright notices in gpsd are the way they all want it done.
> >
>
> Gary, my proposal was to follow what NTPsec is doing, exactly.
yes, but I partly disagree.
> Currently:
>
>
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 3:42 AM Gary E. Miller via devel
wrote:
>
> I did this at the suggestion of Mark Atwood. He is project head for
> gpsd, NTPsec and other projects. He also works at Amazon on software
> license issues. The MAGA have deemed that the current copyright notices
&
Yo John!
On Wed, 06 May 2020 09:02:30 -0400
John Ackermann wrote:
> As a now-retired copyright lawyer, I'd say that removing the years is
> OK.
Yes, but I have not removed the year of first publication, just the
later years. The "(c)" and the years after first pub neer
(cc: to devel@ntpsec)
Hi,
Over at the NTPsec project (whose developer community intersects with
gpsd's) they have scrubbed the Copyright Year from the "Form of Notice".
eg:
-* Copyright (c) University of Delaware 1992-2015 *
+* Copyright Univers
) My own curiosity
Learning is always good.
> 2) Wearing my Debian packager hat, in case this comes up with Debian
>when I bring in the next NTPsec release with all the years scrubbed
>and update debian/copyright to match.
Do please scrub it from the Debian package.
> 3) Becaus
https://blog.ntpsec.org/2020/02/15/copyright-year.html
"There is no need to include the year in a copyright declaration
statement. And related, there is no need to update the year statement,
add new year statements, manage year range statements, or any of that
stuff. It is tedious, boring,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 4:47 PM Hal Murray via devel wrote:
>
> I just updated the NTS code to include a Copyright, copied from another
> module.
>
> If this isn't appropriate, please tell me what it should be.
>
> /*
> * nts_cookie.c - Network Time Security (NTS) coo
I just updated the NTS code to include a Copyright, copied from another module.
If this isn't appropriate, please tell me what it should be.
/*
* nts_cookie.c - Network Time Security (NTS) cookie processing
* Copyright 2019 by the NTPsec project contributors
* SPDX-License-Identifier:
I will sweep through the documentation files, and add the correct forms and
content for the copyright and license markings.
..m
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:02 PM Gary E. Miller wrote:
> Yo Mark!
>
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:58:55 +
> Mark Atwood wrote:
>
> > When you cr
Yo Mark!
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:58:55 +
Mark Atwood wrote:
> When you create a new file, mark it as follows (updating the year) as
> required:
[...]
Can you add this advice to some doc that is in tree?
RGDS
GARY
---
G
at 11:16 AM Daniel Poirot wrote:
> What's fun is hearing "No copyright needed, I got it off Stack Overflow!"
>
> ...wrong
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Mark Atwood wrote:
>
> Commercial FOSS audit tools like Protecode and Blackduck will be able to
>
What's fun is hearing "No copyright needed, I got it off Stack Overflow!"
...wrong
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Mark Atwood wrote:
>
> Commercial FOSS audit tools like Protecode and Blackduck will be able to
> recognize the SPDX tags, and the Copyright text.
Commercial FOSS audit tools like Protecode and Blackduck will be able to
recognize the SPDX tags, and the Copyright text.
In our file ntpsec/devel/hacking.txt :
We use the SPDX convention for inclusion by reference. You can read about
this at
http://spdx.org/licenses
When you create a
Commercial FOSS audit tools like Protecode and BlackDuck will match a snippet
and attribute to the FOSS project.
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Mark Atwood wrote:
>
> That's... complicated.
>
> We don't need to have a notice attached to every file, because there
That's... complicated.
We don't need to have a notice attached to every file, because there is a
copyright notice attached to the project as a whole, and there is a notice
attached to each repo. Individual files generally don't each need their
own notice, since individual fil
fallenpega...@gmail.com said:
> Right now our standard copyright text is "Copyright $YEAR_YOU_ARE_WRITING_THI
> S by the NTP Project contributors"
Should the documentation files have a copyright notice?
--
These are my opinio
copyright lengths will always be increased to keep Steamboat Willy under
copyright.
Right now our standard copyright text is "Copyright
$YEAR_YOU_ARE_WRITING_THIS by the NTP Project contributors"
After 50ish years goes by from now-ish, we can revisit.
..m
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 1:02
Yo Mark!
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 07:58:24 +
Mark Atwood wrote:
> > Do they need to be updated? I just noticed one that was 2015.
> they don't require updating
US Copyright is now generally 70 years after the death of the author.
You plan to live that lo
they don't require updating
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 5:38 PM Hal Murray wrote:
>
> Do they need to be updated? I just noticed one that was 2015.
>
> Should that go on the release checklist?
>
>
> --
> These are my opinions. I hate spam.
>
>
>
> ___
> de
Do they need to be updated? I just noticed one that was 2015.
Should that go on the release checklist?
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
22 matches
Mail list logo
