svn commit: r335091 - head/sbin/nvmecontrol

[Warner Losh]

So I  found this

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf

and it states two things:

"A notice consists of three elements that generally appear as a single
continuous statement: • The copyright symbol © (or for phonorecords, the
symbol ℗ ); the word “copyright”; or the abbreviation “copr.”; • The year
of first publication of the work; and • The name of the copyright owner."

But this only required for works published before March 1, 1989. It later
states:

"Copyright notice is optional for unpublished works, foreign works, or
works published on or after March 1, 1989. When notice is optional,
copyright owners can use any form of notice they wish."

The project wishes date ranges. :)

But since we're not lawyers...

Warner

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:37 PM, Juli Mallett <juli at northcloak.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 13 June 2018 at 22:35, Rodney W. Grimes <freebsd at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net
> > wrote:
>
>> > On 13 June 2018 at 20:28, Rodney W. Grimes <
>> freebsd at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Rodney W. Grimes <
>> ...
>> > > > > > @@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
>> > > > > >  /*-
>> > > > > > - * Copyright (c) 2017 Netflix, Inc
>> > > > > > - * All rights reserved.
>> > > > > > + * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause-FreeBSD
>> > > > > >   *
>> > > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2018 Netflix
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You moved a copyright forward, that is not proper to do.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Thought it was. I honestly don't care where (nor does my employer),
>> so if
>> > > > you want to tweak it to be more conforming, be my guest.
>> > >
>> > > You can add a new date to the end of a list, but you should always
>> > > retain the oldest date, and many opinions are that all dates should
>> > > be retained unless they are continuous.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Do you have a citation for this, Rod?  I ask because my impression was
>> that
>> > although it has often been done, and at one point may legitimately have
>> > been required, it is not any longer so.  I'd love to have a concrete
>> source
>> > on this, though.
>>
>> One place to start is circ15:
>> https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf
>>
>> Fundemental principle of copyright protections duration are from -first-
>> date of publication, that is covered in USC 17.  If you miss represent
>> that date in your copyright your copyright can be held invalid.
>> The real smoking gun is:
>> 17 USC 401 b (2):
>>         the year of first publication of the work; in the
>>         case of compilations or derivative works incorporating
>>         previously published material, the year date of first
>>         publication of the compilation or derivative work is
>>         sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial,
>>         graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying text matter,
>>         if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards,
>>         stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles; and
>>
>> The interpretation of compilation or derivative does open a grey
>> area here in software, and I can see how one might consider a
>> patch to create a derived work.
>>
>
> Per your quote:
> "the year of first publication of the work; in the
>         case of compilations or derivative works incorporating
>         previously published material, the year date of first
>         publication of the compilation or derivative work is
>         sufficient."
>
> It seems to plainly suggest listing one year, not several years, and
> certainly not by some convoluted scheme.
>
> We're not lawyers.  I'm not sure this is a useful discussion.  I'd love a
> citation for the multiple-years scheme you describe, which does not seem to
> be in USC 17.
>
>
> There is case law that putting a date later than first publication
>> appears as an attempt to move the duration of your protection
>> to be longer than it really should be.
>>
>> https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap2200/ch2200-notice.pdf
>> At 2202.2(A) Advantages to Using Notice on Post-Berne Works
>>         "It identifies the year of first publication,
>>         which may be used to determine the term of copyright
>>         protection in the case of an anonymous work,
>>         a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire."
>>
>> Much of our work, and in this case of Netflix and these
>> files, they are defanitly works made for hire, so this
>> applies and identifying first date of publication is
>> important.
>>
>> There is also:
>> At 2203.1 Works First Published Between January 1, 1978 and February 28,
>> 1989
>> This Applies to some of our code, as it has First publications
>> in these date ranges, boils down to even though Berne says you dont
>> have to have a notice, if you first published the work in this time
>> frame you had to have a notice then, and you still have to have a
>> notice now.
>>
>> Yes, Disney and others have done fun stuff with copyrights on *movies*,
>> but that has other complications doing with re-mixes and all sorts of
>> other
>> things that make it possible for them to claim it is a new creative
>> work, not just a revision of an old work.
>>
>> I could re research the case law if you really want more.
>>
>>
>> > > It would be much simpler for you to commit:
>> > > - * Copyright (C) 2018 Netflix
>> > > + * Copyright (C) 2017-2018 Netflix
>> > >
>> > > Than for me to get approval: bde, phk.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks.
>> > > Rod
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > Not sure about dropping the , Inc either.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Doesn't matter. Different Netflix committers do different things
>> and I
>> > > was
>> > > > trying to move towards uniformity.
>> > >
>> > > Ok
>> > >
>> > > > Warner
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Rod Grimes
>> > > rgrimes at freebsd.org
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>> --
>> Rod Grimes
>> rgrimes at freebsd.org
>>
>
>