Finish updating copyright years

Finish updating copyright years

[Richard M. Stallman]

Would people please finish the updating the copyright years?
That is standing in the way of the release.

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Randal L. Schwartz]

>>>>> "Richard" == Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

Richard> Would people please finish the updating the copyright years?
Richard> That is standing in the way of the release.

Just to make sure this is legal... the copyright year *cannot* change
unless something has changed (besides the copyright notice).

You can't take every file and just s/2004/2005/g, for example.  You
can update the copyright if some change was actually made in the file.

It's conceivable, and in fact very likely, that some of the files
will still be copyright 2004 or earlier in this next release.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[David Kastrup]

merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:

>>>>>> "Richard" == Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>
> Richard> Would people please finish the updating the copyright years?
> Richard> That is standing in the way of the release.
>
> Just to make sure this is legal... the copyright year *cannot* change
> unless something has changed (besides the copyright notice).
>
> You can't take every file and just s/2004/2005/g, for example.  You
> can update the copyright if some change was actually made in the file.
>
> It's conceivable, and in fact very likely, that some of the files
> will still be copyright 2004 or earlier in this next release.

Which is why the copyright year updating process can't be automated.
Which is the reason that Richard is asking for volunteers to do the
update.  It's not like we have not had not extensive discussions on
the list about this.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Nick Roberts]

 > Richard> Would people please finish the updating the copyright years?
 > Richard> That is standing in the way of the release.
 > 
 > Just to make sure this is legal... the copyright year *cannot* change
 > unless something has changed (besides the copyright notice).

The legal advice we have been given (see emacs/admin/notes/years) says
that we can.

 > You can't take every file and just s/2004/2005/g, for example.  You
 > can update the copyright if some change was actually made in the file.

Again this is not the advice that we have received.  What copyright law
are you referring to?  Or are you applying "commen sense"? (which AFAICS
has no place in law).

 > It's conceivable, and in fact very likely, that some of the files
 > will still be copyright 2004 or earlier in this next release.

Yes.  If you look at the files that have been changed, they all include the
year 2004.

Nick

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Piet van Oostrum]

>>>>> merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) (RLS) wrote:

>>>>> "Richard" == Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>Richard> Would people please finish the updating the copyright years?
>Richard> That is standing in the way of the release.

>RLS> Just to make sure this is legal... the copyright year *cannot* change
>RLS> unless something has changed (besides the copyright notice).

Legal in what sense? Are there laws describing what you can put in a
copyright notice?
-- 
Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.uu.nl>
URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4]
Private email: piet@vanoostrum.org

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Randal L. Schwartz]

>>>>> "Nick" == Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz> writes:

Nick> Again this is not the advice that we have received.  What
Nick> copyright law are you referring to?  Or are you applying "commen
Nick> sense"? (which AFAICS has no place in law).

I've been a technical writer for over 20 years, off and on.  It was my
second "professional" job, and the one that has most frequently paid
my salary.  The advice I gave earlier is both repeated and consistent
from every one of my employers.

However, if you got a lawyer that says otherwise, feel free to take
that advice instead.  I'm just quoting what I know, trying to help.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Randal L. Schwartz]

>>>>> "Piet" == Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.uu.nl> writes:

RLS> Just to make sure this is legal... the copyright year *cannot* change
RLS> unless something has changed (besides the copyright notice).

Piet> Legal in what sense? Are there laws describing what you can put in a
Piet> copyright notice?

The way it was explained to me is that you can't take something that
says:

        Copyright (c) 1994, Randal L. Schwartz

and re-release it in 2005 as:

        Copyright (c) 1994, 2005 Randal L. Schwartz

without any new creative content, because that would be artificially
extending the date of original publication, and that's not legal.

However, if you introduce new creative content, the *new* content is
copyright during the new release year, although the *old* content
still must be released with the old dates.  That's why updated
material ends up with multiple dates.

So, legal in the sense that it reflects the actual copyright protections.

Reading the file that was pointed out to me (in emacs/admin/notes), if
you have a lawyer that's willing to ignore the tradition here to cover
you when you go to court, I'm perfectly fine to stop suggesting what I
know to be true.  So I'll go back to my corner.  Just hope you don't
end up in court. :)

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Piet van Oostrum]

>>>>> merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) (RLS) wrote:

>RLS> The way it was explained to me is that you can't take something that
>RLS> says:

>RLS>         Copyright (c) 1994, Randal L. Schwartz

>RLS> and re-release it in 2005 as:

>RLS>         Copyright (c) 1994, 2005 Randal L. Schwartz

>RLS> without any new creative content, because that would be artificially
>RLS> extending the date of original publication, and that's not legal.

That sounds reasonable.

>RLS> However, if you introduce new creative content, the *new* content is
>RLS> copyright during the new release year, although the *old* content
>RLS> still must be released with the old dates.  That's why updated
>RLS> material ends up with multiple dates.

That means the old contents will expire earlier than the new contents,
I suppose. I don't think emacs will ever get into that problem :=)
-- 
Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.uu.nl>
URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4]
Private email: piet@vanoostrum.org

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Randal L. Schwartz]

>>>>> "Piet" == Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.uu.nl> writes:

Piet> That means the old contents will expire earlier than the new contents,
Piet> I suppose. I don't think emacs will ever get into that problem :=)

Well, there are parts of my sole distro contribution (pp.el) that are
unchanged from Sep 9, 1988 when I first released it[1].  Oddly, I see
the first copyright as 1989, so that's already a bit of a lie.

Actually, since the copyrights are all modern-era copyrights, most of
this is actually moot.  The copyright expires in a manner not related
to first-publication, but to the death of the "owner".  Since the
owner is the FSF, all materials assigned to FSF are copyrighted to
the "death" of FSF plus 70 years (thanks to the "mickey mouse" rule).

At least, I think so.

[1] <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emacs/msg/cd681e2a93f1db25?dmode=source>

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Kim F. Storm]

merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:

>         Copyright (c) 1994, 2005 Randal L. Schwartz
>
> without any new creative content, because that would be artificially
> extending the date of original publication, and that's not legal.

IIUC, the argument is that the copyright applies to the Emacs release
as a whole, and *Emacs* has definitely changed in 2005.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Randal L. Schwartz]

>>>>> "Kim" == Kim F Storm <storm@cua.dk> writes:

Kim> merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
>> Copyright (c) 1994, 2005 Randal L. Schwartz
>> 
>> without any new creative content, because that would be artificially
>> extending the date of original publication, and that's not legal.

Kim> IIUC, the argument is that the copyright applies to the Emacs release
Kim> as a whole, and *Emacs* has definitely changed in 2005.

Darn it, stop picking a fight with me. :)

That same argument would have applied to my books then, as well, but I
was given precisely the opposite advice.  The *entire* book hasn't
changed, just *some* of the words and pages.  Same is true for emacs:
you didn't rewrite it from scratch between 2004 and 2005: some of the
code is *identically* the same.  Therefore, it's not a *new* creative
act... but a composite of existing creativity *plus* new creativity.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Kim F. Storm]

merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:

>>>>>> "Kim" == Kim F Storm <storm@cua.dk> writes:
>
> Kim> merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
>>> Copyright (c) 1994, 2005 Randal L. Schwartz
>>> 
>>> without any new creative content, because that would be artificially
>>> extending the date of original publication, and that's not legal.
>
> Kim> IIUC, the argument is that the copyright applies to the Emacs release
> Kim> as a whole, and *Emacs* has definitely changed in 2005.
>
> Darn it, stop picking a fight with me. :)

You started it ;-)



> That same argument would have applied to my books then, as well, but I
> was given precisely the opposite advice.  The *entire* book hasn't
> changed, just *some* of the words and pages.  Same is true for emacs:
> you didn't rewrite it from scratch between 2004 and 2005: some of the
> code is *identically* the same.  Therefore, it's not a *new* creative
> act... but a composite of existing creativity *plus* new creativity.

But take emacs/src/xdisp.c as an example.  It is 23750 lines of C code.

Now, suppose I changed 25 lines in that file.  So only a fraction of
the file is new creativity, but still I would update the copyright to
say (C) 2005.

How is that different from you adding some new material to your book?

We can argue about this issue forever, but if our lawyer says the
policy is ok, I'm ok with that.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Randal L. Schwartz]

>>>>> "Kim" == Kim F Storm <storm@cua.dk> writes:

Kim> But take emacs/src/xdisp.c as an example.  It is 23750 lines of C code.

Kim> Now, suppose I changed 25 lines in that file.  So only a fraction of
Kim> the file is new creativity, but still I would update the copyright to
Kim> say (C) 2005.

And you would be wrong, according to my sources.  You should change
that file to say (c) 2004, 2005.

Kim> We can argue about this issue forever, but if our lawyer says the
Kim> policy is ok, I'm ok with that.

And that's why I'm not arguing for change, just making sure I'm clear
on everyone's point and everyone is clear on mine.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Richard M. Stallman]

Eben Moglen already sent the legal advice that we are basing this on.

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Richard M. Stallman]

    Kim> IIUC, the argument is that the copyright applies to the Emacs release
    Kim> as a whole, and *Emacs* has definitely changed in 2005.

That is what our lawyer told us.  We are following his advice.

Would people please drop the issue and send no more messages about it
here?

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Glenn Morris]

"Richard M. Stallman" wrote:

> Would people please finish the updating the copyright years?
> That is standing in the way of the release.

Sorry, but even the new simple guidelines are not simple enough for
me and I have a question about how to do this.

The advice we are working to is:

   Our lawyer says it is ok if we add, to each file that has been in
   Emacs since Emacs 21 came out in 2001, all the subsequent years.

Does this mean we should add "2001" to the list of years, or not?

Taking it literally, no; but I'd expect (if that's worth anything)
yes.

Looking at what's been done so far; it looks to me as if some people
have been adding 2001 (eg lisp/progmodes/prolog.el), and some have not
(eg lisp/eshell/em-alias.el). So this needs clarifying.

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Richard M. Stallman]

       Our lawyer says it is ok if we add, to each file that has been in
       Emacs since Emacs 21 came out in 2001, all the subsequent years.

    Does this mean we should add "2001" to the list of years, or not?

    Taking it literally, no; but I'd expect (if that's worth anything)
    yes.

    Looking at what's been done so far; it looks to me as if some people
    have been adding 2001 (eg lisp/progmodes/prolog.el), and some have not
    (eg lisp/eshell/em-alias.el). So this needs clarifying.

Yes, I think we should.
But it may not be a big bad thing if we don't.

I have cc'd Eben Moglen so he can tell us what to do.

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Would it be possible to add all these notes about how copyright years
should be updated to the GNU Coding Standards?

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Richard M. Stallman]

    Would it be possible to add all these notes about how copyright years
    should be updated to the GNU Coding Standards?

I am trying to get this done.

Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

       Would it be possible to add all these notes about how copyright
       years should be updated to the GNU Coding Standards?

   I am trying to get this done.

Thank you.