| 1 |
I'snt copyright deth of author +70yrs? |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On 5 May 2017 20:06, "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> On Fri, 5 May 2017 13:18:58 -0400 |
| 6 |
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > On Fri, 05 May 2017 18:55:41 +0200 |
| 9 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > > On pią, 2017-05-05 at 10:35 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 12 |
> > > > # Copyright 2017 Gentoo Foundation |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > Aren't we supposed to use the full range of years here? |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > It applies when something comes into existing. If this eclass did not |
| 17 |
> > exist in 2016, a copyright for that year would not be correct. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > This maybe different for ebuilds, as that could be considered derived |
| 20 |
> > from the original ebuild. First one ever written. I am not sure the |
| 21 |
> > same applies to eclasses, but it might. In that case the year of the |
| 22 |
> > first eclass would be correct. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > I guess it is safe to always use the oldest year. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> It may not be good to use the oldest year. Rather the first year |
| 27 |
> something came into existence. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> "If the copyright duration depends on the date of first publication |
| 30 |
> and the year given in the notice is earlier than the |
| 31 |
> actual publication date, protection may be shortened by |
| 32 |
> beginning the term on the date in the notice" |
| 33 |
> https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> That means if you author something in 2017, and put down say 1999-2017. |
| 36 |
> You are starting at 1999, and not 2017. Losing 16 years for no reason. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> -- |
| 39 |
> William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 40 |
> |
Archives