Thread: Copyright update
I have updated all the source files for a 2009 copyright; seems the commit message was suppressed due to its size. Tom found a few more and I have adjusted for those as well. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the whole source tree considiered one work? -- Greg On 1 Jan 2009, at 13:25, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > I have updated all the source files for a 2009 copyright; seems the > commit message was suppressed due to its size. Tom found a few more > and > I have adjusted for those as well. > > -- > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark wrote: > Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the > whole source tree considiered one work? One work, I assume. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Greg Stark wrote: >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the >> whole source tree considiered one work? > > One work, I assume. > I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every source file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only have to be one notice. -- Andrew Chernow eSilo, LLC every bit counts http://www.esilo.com/
Andrew Chernow wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Greg Stark wrote: > >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the > >> whole source tree considiered one work? > > > > One work, I assume. > > > > I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every source > file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only have to be one notice. Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other projects. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Andrew Chernow wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Greg Stark wrote: > > >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the > > >> whole source tree considiered one work? > > > > > > One work, I assume. > > > > > > > I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every source > > file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only have to be one notice. > > Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other > projects. I think the correct resolution to the question is to ask legal. Yes? Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company,serving since 1997
Greg Stark <greg.stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
> whole source tree considiered one work?
[ shrug... ] We've always done it this way.
regards, tom lane
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Andrew Chernow wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Greg Stark wrote: > > > >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the > > > >> whole source tree considiered one work? > > > > > > > > One work, I assume. > > > > > > > > > > I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every source > > > file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only have to be one notice. > > > > Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other > > projects. > > I think the correct resolution to the question is to ask legal. Yes? So I can get three different answers? It is not a priority for me. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Andrew Chernow wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Greg Stark wrote: >>> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the >>> whole source tree considiered one work? >> One work, I assume. > I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every > source file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only have to > be one notice. "Would only have to be one notice" is correct. You do not need a notice in every file. You put a notice in every file as extra unnecessary effort to make sure that people cannot possibly miss it. It is not a requirement for copyright that every file have a copyright comment on top. That it is in every source file is similar to putting extra parens around expressions or embedding documentation in an API. It does not indicate that the work is not a single work. It is simply making the terms more explicit and easily accessible. Most importantly, the *lack* of a copyright notice, does not indicate that there is no copyright rights defined. If 10 files have a copyright notice, and the 11th file does not, this does not indicate that the 11th file has more or less copyright restrictions than the other 10 that are explicit. The implicit copyright may be "All rights reserved" whereas the explicit copyright may say "You may use this software for free provided that you do not hold the authors responsible for any damages caused by use of the software". Which is more restrictive? Cheers, mark -- Mark Mielke <mark@mielke.cc>
Bruce Momjian wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:200901011947.n01Jlwi19211@momjian.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">Andrew Chernowwrote: </pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice inevery source file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only have to be one notice. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap=""> Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other projects. </pre></blockquote><br /> As per my previous message, although people do this, it is not "safer" to copy a filewithout an explicit copyright embedded within the file, than to copy a file without an explicit copyright embedded withinthe file. The explicit copyright embedded serves more of a warning for people that don't know better to guilt theminto thinking twice before doing whatever they are doing, than an actual legal requirement for enforcement of copyrightrestrictions.<br /><br /> Cheers,<br /> mark<br /><br /><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- Mark Mielke <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark@mielke.cc"><mark@mielke.cc></a> </pre>
On Thursday 01 January 2009 15:28:51 Bruce Momjian wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Andrew Chernow wrote: > > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > Greg Stark wrote: > > > > >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the > > > > >> whole source tree considiered one work? > > > > > > > > > > One work, I assume. > > > > > > > > I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in > > > > every source file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only > > > > have to be one notice. > > > > > > Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other > > > projects. > > > > I think the correct resolution to the question is to ask legal. Yes? > > So I can get three different answers? It is not a priority for me. > Nor does it need to be... copyright for organizations runs ~ 100 years, so a year here or there is unlikely to make much difference to any of us. (Though for future generations, we'd probably have been better off not having a copyright notice at all). -- Robert Treat Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net Consulting: http://www.omniti.com