Is it legal to have the “// (c) 2019 John Smith” header in all files when there are hundreds of contributors?Does an employee have the right to use a CTA?How do I properly specify the year(s) of copyright?Which author/copyright holder “type” is allowed in the MIT license? Pseudonym, Company name, …?Copyright assignments in GermanyCan I change the copyright license, with this text in the CLA?Can I remove some copyright holders from headers and replace them by a generic “and contributors”?Can a GitHub Organization assert copyright?If there is no copyright notice, is the license applied?How should I identify myself in a copyright notice / license?Copyright notices and multiple developers
What typically incentivizes a professor to change jobs to a lower ranking university?
Can you lasso down a wizard who is using the Levitate spell?
Infinite past with a beginning?
Can I make popcorn with any corn?
Can an x86 CPU running in real mode be considered to be basically an 8086 CPU?
Do airline pilots ever risk not hearing communication directed to them specifically, from traffic controllers?
How to determine if window is maximised or minimised from bash script
least quadratic residue under GRH: an EXPLICIT bound
Modification to Chariots for Heavy Cavalry Analogue for 4-armed race
My colleague's body is amazing
Why do we use polarized capacitor?
Why Is Death Allowed In the Matrix?
Why does not dark matter gather and form celestial bodies?
Why doesn't Newton's third law mean a person bounces back to where they started when they hit the ground?
Prevent a directory in /tmp from being deleted
Why is an old chain unsafe?
Circuitry of TV splitters
What makes Graph invariants so useful/important?
N.B. ligature in Latex
What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?
Can a German sentence have two subjects?
How is it possible for user's password to be changed after storage was encrypted? (on OS X, Android)
Extreme, but not acceptable situation and I can't start the work tomorrow morning
How to use Pandas to get the count of every combination inclusive
Is it legal to have the “// (c) 2019 John Smith” header in all files when there are hundreds of contributors?
Does an employee have the right to use a CTA?How do I properly specify the year(s) of copyright?Which author/copyright holder “type” is allowed in the MIT license? Pseudonym, Company name, …?Copyright assignments in GermanyCan I change the copyright license, with this text in the CLA?Can I remove some copyright holders from headers and replace them by a generic “and contributors”?Can a GitHub Organization assert copyright?If there is no copyright notice, is the license applied?How should I identify myself in a copyright notice / license?Copyright notices and multiple developers
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
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
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
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
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).
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
27 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).
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
27 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).
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
27 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).
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).
edited 5 hours ago
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
27 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
27 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
27 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
27 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