svn commit: r314905 - in head/sys: compat/linuxkpi/common/include/linux compat/linuxkpi/common/src conf modules/linuxkpi

[Warner Losh]

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Rodney W. Grimes
<freebsd at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Rodney W. Grimes
>> <freebsd at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
> ...
>
>> > Though widly seen, often miss understood, this modification technically under the copyright
>> > law can be used to assert that you have claimed copyright on the 2014 work more than one
>> > year after original poublication, hence the work done in 2014 now falls under different
>> > parts of the US copyright law.  A prefered form of the above dates would be
>> > 2013-2014, 2017.  Do not assert copyrights for years in which no new material was
>> > published.   Publishes is defferent than written.  Do not interpret these dates
>> > as the dates written.
>> >
>> > Effect of this type of error:
>> >   According to the U.S. Copyright Act, if the year date [in the copyright
>> >   notice] is more than one year later than the year in which publication first
>> >   occurred, the work is considered to have been published without any notice.
>>
>> This is incorrect legal advice. Please don't give out legal advice if
>> you are not a lawyer.
> Which your now doing also ?
>
>>
>> The copyright office's own page says you need only list the first year
>> of publication on the list of years[*].
> This is a circ pub, and not the actual laws or trial cases, its good
> information, but not complete information.  Your reference to
> "list of years" appears no place, that I can find, in this
> document.  "list of" does not appear in this document.  Some
> lawyers well even recommend, and given we have a VCS, you clearly
> mark which parts are copyright for which years.
>
>> The project's guidance to
>> committers for the last 20 years is to do a range of copyright dates.
> The projects guidance has wrongly been changed then, as I have
> always tried to make sure the A, B, C-D information was applied
> correctly.  I do have a fairly good understanding of copyright law.
>
> Can you point to any "published" project guidance on this manner?
>
>> If you'd believe this is in error, please work with the FreeBSD
>> Foundation to get their lawyers to offer updated guidance.
>
> I was actually already considering asking the Foundation to consult
> an attorney and have a published policy on this issue, with examples
> and such of when to do which.
>
>> Warner
>>
>> [*] https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf
>
> If your gona site aite a reference to a publication it
> is usually best to assert what part of it your referncing.
> I had already ready circ03.pdf and several other legal
> reference sources before making my assertion(s).
>
> 2. The year of first publication. If the work is a derivative
> work or a compilation incorporating previously published
> material, the year date of first publication of the derivative
> work or compilation is sufficient. Examples of derivative
> works are translations or dramatizations; an example of
> a compilation is an anthology. The year may be omitted
> when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with
> accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or
> on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys,
> or useful articles
>
> I would consider this a dervied work and hence needs an
> assertion of a correct date on that derivation.  So do many
> other attorneys.
>
> Also that clause 2 is one of the only parts in the circ that
> actually comes out of law text.

Since neither one of us are attorneys, let's let the Foundation sort
this out. I've been keeping track of this for the last 20 years, so I
think you're wrong, but don't have the time to tilt this windmill. If
you want something changed, please work for that change rather than
write long, useless emails.

Yes, I'm annoyed. This isn't the first time. I'm done arguing.

Warner