Is it legal to have the “// (c) 2019 John Smith” header in all files when there are hundreds of...
Companies use headers like
// Copyright 2011 The Go Authors.
But countless projects with a single maintainer have
// Copyright 2011 John Smith
even though they have hundreds of contributors, all of whom own their contributions.
Is this ok to only include the owner in the header?
Thanks
copyright programming
asked 7 hours ago
AlexAlex
1424
add a comment |
Companies use headers like
// Copyright 2011 The Go Authors.
But countless projects with a single maintainer have
// Copyright 2011 John Smith
even though they have hundreds of contributors, all of whom own their contributions.
Is this ok to only include the owner in the header?
Thanks
copyright programming
asked 7 hours ago
AlexAlex
1424
add a comment |
Companies use headers like
// Copyright 2011 The Go Authors.
But countless projects with a single maintainer have
// Copyright 2011 John Smith
even though they have hundreds of contributors, all of whom own their contributions.
Is this ok to only include the owner in the header?
Thanks
copyright programming
asked 7 hours ago
AlexAlex
1424
Companies use headers like
// Copyright 2011 The Go Authors.
But countless projects with a single maintainer have
// Copyright 2011 John Smith
even though they have hundreds of contributors, all of whom own their contributions.
Is this ok to only include the owner in the header?
Thanks
copyright programming
copyright programming
asked 7 hours ago
AlexAlex
1424
asked 7 hours ago
AlexAlex
1424
asked 7 hours ago
AlexAlex
1424
asked 7 hours ago
AlexAlex
1424
asked 7 hours ago
AlexAlex
1424
1424
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
As far as I am aware, all FLOSS licenses that deal with copyright notices only require the preservation of notices that exist. Each author had the opportunity to add their own name to header when they made their contribution. If they chose not to do so, there is no existing notice from that author to preserve. There is never (as far as I know) any requirement to proactively add a notice that an author chose not to include.
Not having a copyright notice for some copyright holder is not inherently legally problematic, either, since copyright notices have virtually no legal function. Since a majority of nations ratified the Berne Convention, copyright rights are automatically granted at the time of a work's creation, irrespective of any copyright notice on the work.
If someone removes existing copyright notices from another author, then that's obviously not allowed by the license (and is typically illegal in general).
answered 6 hours ago
apsillers♦apsillers
15.9k12653
Why is removing a copyright notice "typically illegal in general"? For example if a work is in the public domain, or its copyright has expired, I don't see how removing the copyright notice would be "illegal in general" in that case.
– Brandin
16 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "619"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8168%2fis-it-legal-to-have-the-c-2019-john-smith-header-in-all-files-when-there%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As far as I am aware, all FLOSS licenses that deal with copyright notices only require the preservation of notices that exist. Each author had the opportunity to add their own name to header when they made their contribution. If they chose not to do so, there is no existing notice from that author to preserve. There is never (as far as I know) any requirement to proactively add a notice that an author chose not to include.
Not having a copyright notice for some copyright holder is not inherently legally problematic, either, since copyright notices have virtually no legal function. Since a majority of nations ratified the Berne Convention, copyright rights are automatically granted at the time of a work's creation, irrespective of any copyright notice on the work.
If someone removes existing copyright notices from another author, then that's obviously not allowed by the license (and is typically illegal in general).
answered 6 hours ago
apsillers♦apsillers
15.9k12653
Why is removing a copyright notice "typically illegal in general"? For example if a work is in the public domain, or its copyright has expired, I don't see how removing the copyright notice would be "illegal in general" in that case.
– Brandin
16 mins ago
add a comment |
As far as I am aware, all FLOSS licenses that deal with copyright notices only require the preservation of notices that exist. Each author had the opportunity to add their own name to header when they made their contribution. If they chose not to do so, there is no existing notice from that author to preserve. There is never (as far as I know) any requirement to proactively add a notice that an author chose not to include.
Not having a copyright notice for some copyright holder is not inherently legally problematic, either, since copyright notices have virtually no legal function. Since a majority of nations ratified the Berne Convention, copyright rights are automatically granted at the time of a work's creation, irrespective of any copyright notice on the work.
If someone removes existing copyright notices from another author, then that's obviously not allowed by the license (and is typically illegal in general).
answered 6 hours ago
apsillers♦apsillers
15.9k12653
Why is removing a copyright notice "typically illegal in general"? For example if a work is in the public domain, or its copyright has expired, I don't see how removing the copyright notice would be "illegal in general" in that case.
– Brandin
16 mins ago
add a comment |
As far as I am aware, all FLOSS licenses that deal with copyright notices only require the preservation of notices that exist. Each author had the opportunity to add their own name to header when they made their contribution. If they chose not to do so, there is no existing notice from that author to preserve. There is never (as far as I know) any requirement to proactively add a notice that an author chose not to include.
Not having a copyright notice for some copyright holder is not inherently legally problematic, either, since copyright notices have virtually no legal function. Since a majority of nations ratified the Berne Convention, copyright rights are automatically granted at the time of a work's creation, irrespective of any copyright notice on the work.
If someone removes existing copyright notices from another author, then that's obviously not allowed by the license (and is typically illegal in general).
answered 6 hours ago
apsillers♦apsillers
15.9k12653
As far as I am aware, all FLOSS licenses that deal with copyright notices only require the preservation of notices that exist. Each author had the opportunity to add their own name to header when they made their contribution. If they chose not to do so, there is no existing notice from that author to preserve. There is never (as far as I know) any requirement to proactively add a notice that an author chose not to include.
Not having a copyright notice for some copyright holder is not inherently legally problematic, either, since copyright notices have virtually no legal function. Since a majority of nations ratified the Berne Convention, copyright rights are automatically granted at the time of a work's creation, irrespective of any copyright notice on the work.
If someone removes existing copyright notices from another author, then that's obviously not allowed by the license (and is typically illegal in general).
answered 6 hours ago
apsillers♦apsillers
15.9k12653
edited 4 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
apsillers♦apsillers
15.9k12653
answered 6 hours ago
apsillers♦apsillers
15.9k12653
answered 6 hours ago
apsillers♦apsillers
15.9k12653
15.9k12653
Why is removing a copyright notice "typically illegal in general"? For example if a work is in the public domain, or its copyright has expired, I don't see how removing the copyright notice would be "illegal in general" in that case.
– Brandin
16 mins ago
add a comment |
Why is removing a copyright notice "typically illegal in general"? For example if a work is in the public domain, or its copyright has expired, I don't see how removing the copyright notice would be "illegal in general" in that case.
– Brandin
16 mins ago
Why is removing a copyright notice "typically illegal in general"? For example if a work is in the public domain, or its copyright has expired, I don't see how removing the copyright notice would be "illegal in general" in that case.
– Brandin
16 mins ago
Why is removing a copyright notice "typically illegal in general"? For example if a work is in the public domain, or its copyright has expired, I don't see how removing the copyright notice would be "illegal in general" in that case.
– Brandin
16 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Open Source Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8168%2fis-it-legal-to-have-the-c-2019-john-smith-header-in-all-files-when-there%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
