License
in [Java Help]
|
Prev: how to enlarger Java heap size?
Next: JTable: how to change properties of a component located in a cell
From: Peter Duniho on 21 Sep 2009 05:39 On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 02:06:32 -0700, Martin Gregorie <martin(a)address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: >> There is no requirement that a copyright notice, or even attribution, be >> provided in order for a work to be copyrighted. > > Thanks for that. I thought the author had to be identified for an article > to be copyrighted - or at least for the copyright to be meaningful. It may be that used to be the case. From the US Copyright Office's FAQ: "While use of a copyright notice was once required as a condition of copyright protection, it is now optional". As for when an article is copyrighted, also from their FAQ: "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device". No mention of signing it. Lots more info here: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/ Note that this is all US law. The Bern Convention has standarized copyright law to some extent, but there are still differences around the world. Be careful not to assume that just because something's true in the US, it's true somewhere else. Pete
From: Martin Gregorie on 21 Sep 2009 08:06 On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 02:39:01 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote: > Lots more info here: > http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/ > Yes, indeed, and well worth a quick read. However, I notice it doesn't address one point: the utility and effectiveness of copyright for a document or source file that doesn't contain the name of the author, e.g. the example source files distributed with JavaMail. These don't contain the name of the author or, indeed, any reference to Sun, so I'm left wondering how any person or organization could prove authorship if they tried to claim a copyright violation or to dispute a false claim of authorship. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
From: John B. Matthews on 21 Sep 2009 09:29 In article <op.u0k9i9nd8jd0ej(a)macbook-pro.local>, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPeAdM(a)nnowslpianmk.com> wrote: > On reviewing the thread (should I have done that several messages ago? :) > ), I find that I'm not entirely clear about how this came up. Looking at > the quote from Arne to which you originally responded, I see that he seems > to have introduced the idea of linking without modification. > > The OP clearly is modifying the code in question. But if all you and Arne > are discussing is the hypothetical situation in which some other person > simply links to the licensed code, I agree the exception would apply in > that case. Yes, I see this, now. In responding to Arne, I drifted into a general, hypothetical discussion of GPL exceptions that didn't apply to the OP's proposed scenario. > If I've misunderstood the point you were trying to make, I apologize, for > the misunderstanding and for wasting so much of your time on the > question. :) Not at all. I genuinely appreciate your willingness to discuss different scenarios and alternative interpretations. Such analysis is immensely valuable when legal consultation is (inevitably) required. -- John B. Matthews trashgod at gmail dot com <http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
From: Peter Duniho on 21 Sep 2009 13:54 On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 05:06:54 -0700, Martin Gregorie <martin(a)address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 02:39:01 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote: > >> Lots more info here: >> http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/ >> > Yes, indeed, and well worth a quick read. > > However, I notice it doesn't address one point: the utility and > effectiveness of copyright for a document or source file that doesn't > contain the name of the author, e.g. the example source files distributed > with JavaMail. These don't contain the name of the author or, indeed, any > reference to Sun, so I'm left wondering how any person or organization > could prove authorship if they tried to claim a copyright violation or to > dispute a false claim of authorship. The same way they'd prove authorship if the violator stripped the copyright from their own version before using it. Note in the FAQ that one of the first steps in filing a copyright claim is to register with the Copyright Office. I haven't gone through the process myself, but I'm sure it involves documenting in some way the production of the work with the copyright. And yes, if that documentation is sketchy, it can make proving a claim more difficult. But presence or lack of a copyright notice on the work itself doesn't change the difficulty, because a copyright notice can easily be removed by a violator anyway. Typically, a copyrighted work is published in some way, and the owner of the copyright knows how it was published and can document that they in fact were the original publisher. It's that documentation, and not the copyright notice itself, that provides support for a copyright ownership claim. Pete
From: Martin Gregorie on 21 Sep 2009 15:52
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:54:08 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote: > Typically, a copyrighted work is published in some way, and the owner of > the copyright knows how it was published and can document that they in > fact were the original publisher. It's that documentation, and not the > copyright notice itself, that provides support for a copyright ownership > claim. > Yes, that's clear and is a good reason for registering copyright. However, the FAQ also says there's no need for the copyright notice or for registering. Would this leave you in deep doo-doo if you omitted to do both, left out the author's name as well and then tried to have somebody for plagiarism who'd added their own name and published it as theirs. If they hired a lawyer I'd imagine you'd have problems, or did I misunderstand something? -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | |