Updating copyright years (was Re: [gnus git] branch master updated: n0-17-447-g55c26cf =1= Add 2012 to FSF copyright years for Emacs files.)

Updating copyright years (was Re: [gnus git] branch master updated: n0-17-447-g55c26cf =1= Add 2012 to FSF copyright years for Emacs files.)

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

+Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org> writes:

>>     Add 2012 to FSF copyright years for Emacs files.

Cf.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.diffs/112565
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.cvs/11711

> Should this be done for files that haven't changed?

As for emacs-w3m and others I update the copyright years on a file
only when having changed it for the first time in the year.  But
Emacs people seem to have been updating it at the beginning of
every year regardless of having been changed or not.  And as for
those changes I worked as an engineer to merge changes made in
Emacs and Gnus mutually (I've also updated some extra files, e.g.
gnus-xmas.el and friends, though).

I used to feel Emacs' way strange.  Maybe updating the copyright
years of Walt Disney's works every year is nonsense.  But Emacs'
way is alike to it.  What is TRT?

Re: Updating copyright years

[Glenn Morris]

Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:

> Emacs people seem to have been updating it at the beginning of
> every year regardless of having been changed or not.

Emacs has done it this way for several years, as documented in
admin/notes and as recommended in "Information for Maintainers of GNU
Software":

http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-Notices

    To update the list of year numbers, add each year in which you have
    made nontrivial changes to the package. (Here we assume you're using
    a publicly accessible revision control server, so that every
    revision installed is also immediately and automatically published.)
    When you add the new year, it is not required to keep track of which
    files have seen significant changes in the new year and which have
    not. It is recommended and simpler to add the new year to all files
    in the package, and be done with it for the rest of the year.

Re: Updating copyright years

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

Glenn Morris wrote:
> Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:

>> Emacs people seem to have been updating it at the beginning of
>> every year regardless of having been changed or not.

> Emacs has done it this way for several years, as documented in
> admin/notes and as recommended in "Information for Maintainers of GNU
> Software":

> http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-Notices

>     To update the list of year numbers, add each year in which you have
>     made nontrivial changes to the package. (Here we assume you're using
>     a publicly accessible revision control server, so that every
>     revision installed is also immediately and automatically published.)
>     When you add the new year, it is not required to keep track of which
>     files have seen significant changes in the new year and which have
>     not. It is recommended and simpler to add the new year to all files
>     in the package, and be done with it for the rest of the year.

This clalified.  Thanks.  I think it's ok for the Gnus trunk.

Re: Updating copyright years

[Richard Stallman]

Our last legal advice is that the years are for when _Emacs_ changed,
and Emacs has already changed this year.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: Updating copyright years

[Randal L. Schwartz]

>>>>> "GM" == Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:

GM> Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:
>> Emacs people seem to have been updating it at the beginning of
>> every year regardless of having been changed or not.

GM> Emacs has done it this way for several years, as documented in
GM> admin/notes and as recommended in "Information for Maintainers of GNU
GM> Software":

That doesn't make it right, and I've gone on the record in the past
arguing against it.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion

Re: Updating copyright years

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:35:34 -0800 merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote: 

>>>>>> "GM" == Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:
GM> Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:
>>> Emacs people seem to have been updating it at the beginning of
>>> every year regardless of having been changed or not.

GM> Emacs has done it this way for several years, as documented in
GM> admin/notes and as recommended in "Information for Maintainers of GNU
GM> Software":

RLS> That doesn't make it right, and I've gone on the record in the past
RLS> arguing against it.

Doesn't the act of modifying the file to insert the new year make the
file modified and thus require the new year?  Heh heh.

(No opinion one way or the other, just found that amusing.)

Ted

Re: Updating copyright years

[Carsten Mattner]

2012/1/11 Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:35:34 -0800 merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "GM" == Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:
> GM> Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:
>>>> Emacs people seem to have been updating it at the beginning of
>>>> every year regardless of having been changed or not.
>
> GM> Emacs has done it this way for several years, as documented in
> GM> admin/notes and as recommended in "Information for Maintainers of GNU
> GM> Software":
>
> RLS> That doesn't make it right, and I've gone on the record in the past
> RLS> arguing against it.
>
> Doesn't the act of modifying the file to insert the new year make the
> file modified and thus require the new year?  Heh heh.
>
> (No opinion one way or the other, just found that amusing.)

Does anyone know why it's required to include a date (year) in
copyright headers.

In the same context, do all licenses lend themselve to just be
referred in the file
header (foobar $LICENSE_NAME .... found in LICENSE), or is this dangerous?
Is a complete verbatim copy of the license a requirement? Maybe if the file is
distributed separately?

Re: Updating copyright years

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Carsten Mattner writes:
 > Ted Zlatanov writes:

 > > Doesn't the act of modifying the file to insert the new year make
 > > the file modified and thus require the new year?  Heh heh.

No.  Dates are not expressive works.  Q.E.D.

 > Does anyone know why it's required to include a date (year) in
 > copyright headers.

I don't know what the current situation is exactly, but the basic
thing is that in the U.S., the automatic Berne Convention copyright
doesn't require any notice at all (of course that's true of all Berne
Convention signatories).  If you receive a work with no notice, you
must assume that all (copy) rights are reserved to the owner, even if
you don't know who that is.  However, the owner's powers of
enforcement are basically limited to a cease-and-desist order on
copying, and destruction of existing unlicensed copies.

If you want to press criminal charges, and IIRC also to sue for
damages (at least for statutory damages), you need to register your
copyright, and in turn you are obliged to provide a notice of
copyright, including when copyrights in the work were established.
The reason for that requirement today is mostly moot: copyrights do
expire (although we'll probably not see that day), and the copyright
notice tells the user when.

 > In the same context, do all licenses lend themselve to just be
 > referred in the file
 > header (foobar $LICENSE_NAME .... found in LICENSE), or is this dangerous?
 > Is a complete verbatim copy of the license a requirement? Maybe if
 > the file is distributed separately?

The problem with a permission-by-reference is that the user doesn't
know what her rights are, not that the owner of the copyright can't
enforce any restrictions that they choose to maintain (if they're
enforceable at all, of course).  With a well-known license such as the
GPL, it's really not necessary to provide a copy of the license from a
legal point of view (except in cases where it's an invariant section
in an FDL document or the like).  However, the GPL is also an advocacy
document, so providing it in every distribution is a GoodThang.

Re: Updating copyright years

[Carsten Mattner]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
> The problem with a permission-by-reference is that the user doesn't
> know what her rights are, not that the owner of the copyright can't
> enforce any restrictions that they choose to maintain (if they're
> enforceable at all, of course).  With a well-known license such as the
> GPL, it's really not necessary to provide a copy of the license from a
> legal point of view (except in cases where it's an invariant section
> in an FDL document or the like).  However, the GPL is also an advocacy
> document, so providing it in every distribution is a GoodThang.

So if I had something like:
// Copyright __YEAR__ The __PROJECT__ Authors.  All Rights Reserved.
// Use of this source code is governed by a __LICENSE__
// license that can be found in the LICENSE file.

Is that good enough?
Looking at src/nsterm.m as an example, it also doesn't have a copy of the
GPL but a long reference to it plus some surrounding explanation.

/*
GNU Emacs is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
*/

Isn't this almost the same reference-only licensing header?

Re: Updating copyright years

[Richard Stallman]

    With a well-known license such as the
    > GPL, it's really not necessary to provide a copy of the license from a
    > legal point of view

Actually it is a requirement: the GPL says you must include a copy of
the GPL when you distribute a GPL-covered work.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: Updating copyright years

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:
 >     With a well-known license such as the
 >     > GPL, it's really not necessary to provide a copy of the license from a
 >     > legal point of view
 > 
 > Actually it is a requirement: the GPL says you must include a copy of
 > the GPL when you distribute a GPL-covered work.

You're right, I should have been more precise.  I meant that U.S. law
does not require it, although a particular license may.

Re: Updating copyright years

[Richard Stallman]

We are following legal advice, and we will continue to follow it,
so please don't argue about it here.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Updating copyright years (was Re: [gnus git] branch master updated: n0-17-447-g55c26cf =1= Add 2012 to FSF copyright years for Emacs files.)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Katsumi Yamaoka writes:

Hi, Katsumi!

 > I used to feel Emacs' way strange.  Maybe updating the copyright
 > years of Walt Disney's works every year is nonsense.

That can't be done because Walt is dead, and therefore cannot add to
his works.[1]

 > But Emacs' way is alike to it.

No, it's not.  Emacs's source copyrights are updated every year
because Emacs itself is different every year; but old copies of Emacs
in any form do not have their copyrights updated.

 > What is TRT?

Emacs's way.  Copyright is weird, agreed, but given the way copyright
works, Emacs does the right thing.

Footnotes: 
[1]  Of course, Congress regularly does something even more offensive
(ie, extend the term of existing copyrights).  But that's not the same
 as updating the copyright of an existing work.

Re: Updating copyright years (was Re: [gnus git] branch master updated: n0-17-447-g55c26cf =1= Add 2012 to FSF copyright years for Emacs files.)

[Jason Rumney]

Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org> writes:

> I used to feel Emacs' way strange.  Maybe updating the copyright
> years of Walt Disney's works every year is nonsense.  But Emacs'
> way is alike to it.  What is TRT?

Emacs is a single "work", so a single copyright date is appropriate. It
is much less error prone to do it all in one sweep, as there is no risk
of a developer making a change to a file (which may be in 11 months
time) and forgetting to update the copyright notice.

Updating copyright years

[Kim F. Storm]

I'm a bit puzzled by some of the recent updates of copyright years.

Specifically, I looked at emulation/cua-base.el and emulation/cua-rect.el

In the first, years 2003 and 2004 have been _deleted_.
In the second, year 2004 has been _deleted_.

There are several minor changes in 2003, and some very SIGNIFICANT
changes in 2004.

Don't we need to add copyright for those years as we didn't
actually make any official release with those changes?
The sources were still publicly available via anon-CVS.

Please clarify the policy by documenting the correct procedure
in FOR-RELEASE.

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

Re: Updating copyright years

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes:

> Please clarify the policy by documenting the correct
> procedure in FOR-RELEASE.

if there are to be policy corrections, please also modify
admin/notes/years (just installed), since FOR-RELEASE has
more temporary nature.

thi

Re: Updating copyright years

[Richard Stallman]

    Specifically, I looked at emulation/cua-base.el and emulation/cua-rect.el

    In the first, years 2003 and 2004 have been _deleted_.
    In the second, year 2004 has been _deleted_.

That seems strange to me too.  Would whoever made this change please
explain the reasoning behind it?

    Don't we need to add copyright for those years as we didn't
    actually make any official release with those changes?
    The sources were still publicly available via anon-CVS.

That is my thinking too.  Every check-in is in fact published.