5 ms·
Adding copyright notices to every source code file is reasonable because it costs next to nothing. Figuring out what is copyrightable, on the other hand, is exp
by bdowling 5y ago
Adding copyright notices to every source code file is reasonable because it costs next to nothing. Figuring out what is copyrightable, on the other hand, is expensive, because it requires lawyers, and a waste of time because lawyers' answers are always "it depends". You never actually know how enforceable your copyright claim is until you actually litigate, which is REALLY expensive.
- oconnor663 5y agoYeah this is funny, but it's not stupid. It's also a lot simpler to have a company policy that says "every code file should have this boilerplate at the top of it" than to try to specify exactly what does and doesn't. You could even check for this in your CI pipeline, to avoid wasting time debating it in code review.
- cperciva 5y agoAdding copyright notices to every source code file is also pointless, since copyright notices are no longer required to obtain copyright protection.
- axiosgunnar 5y agoIt might help to prove intent when somebody does violate a license (they cannot say "oh wow this was copyrighted? i totally didn't know!")
- TheDong 5y agoI don't think that follows naturally. The default if code does not have any notice anywhere is that it is copyrighted, and no license is given to anyone to use it, so any use of it is a violation. At least in the US, all creative works are copyrighted by default (such as this comment, which does not include a notice of such, but is copyrighted). Because of that, the default assumption of anyone would be that anything is copyrighted and cannot be used for any purpose outside of fair use unless there is a specific license granting additional usage.
- bdowling 5y agoA copyright notice is relevant to willful infringement, which may result in higher damages. Willful infringement requires that the infringer actually knew or should have known (or deliberately avoided finding out) that the copied material was copyrighted.
- cperciva 5y agoWhen you're talking about source code, I don't think anyone is going to get away with "I thought the author died more than 70 years ago".
- zeroimpl 5y agoWhat I look at answers on Stack Overflow, the lack of copyright notices on the code makes me feel safe to copy it. Same goes for grabbing code from random person's blog. If they had put explicit copyright notices in the code snippets, I'd assume otherwise.
- TheDong 5y agoYour assumptions are likely wrong for those cases. In the case of a random blog, the code likely does not have an associated license, meaning it is copyrighted and any derivative use of it (i.e. copying it) is a violation of their copyright. In the case of stackoverflow, their ToS require people who post code to share it under a Creative Commons license [0]. Unfortunately, if the author of the post didn't realize that, it's possible they did not have the original copyright and couldn't make that assignment, so you still may have to do your own due diligence. Where things work as intended on stackoverflow, you are required to provide attribution. Your assumptions are backwards, and it sounds like that results in you violating copyright. [0]: https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing
- zeroimpl 5y agoI know the assumptions are wrong. But the point is the lack of explicit copyright notices on blogs or SO posts is probably enough to convince most courts that you did not willfully violate copyright. The parent I responded to implied you’d have to convince a court that you thought the copyright expired due to death. In general I suffer from NIH complex so don’t really copy code from those places ;)
- _nalply 5y agoFor my hobby projects I add a one-line comment at the bottom refering to the license and its file. // Please keep this line & LICENSE: <license> <year> <name> <email>
- smallnamespace 5y agoCopyright notices are useful the same way written contracts are: you legally do not need a notice (written contract) to establish copyright protection (enter into a contract), but if a dispute arises it helps establish the fact that the user was notified (the other party agreed to this contract). A question of 'law' vs 'facts'
- paulddraper 5y agoThose aren't at all analogous. The automatic state for content is "protected by copyright," unless a different arrangement is made. The automatic state for contract terms is "not agreed to," unless a different arrangement is made. tl;dr You need proof (written or otherwise) that a contact happened; not so with copyright protection.
- smallnamespace 5y agoOral contracts are legal and valid, yet most people write down their contracts for good, practical reasons outside of strict legality. Same goes for copyright notices. For example, the notice makes it hard for a violator to use a negligence defense, effectively increasing the penalty for violations.
- paulddraper 5y agoPeople write down contracts for proof. Without that, it's dubious if the contract even existed. But proof is not relevant for a copyright. Even without writing, the existence of the copyright is not in doubt.
- kbutler 5y agoBut the owner of the copyright is.
- Sebb767 5y agoNegligence is not applicable in this case, as, like the comment above pointed out, the default state is copyrighted. It's a bit like putting a "stealing this car is illegal"-sticker on your car - sure, you made that clear, but "I didn't know stealing this car was illegal" is not going to fly as a defense either way.
- orra 5y agoIndeed. That said, it's worth noting the files in the article predate that. The US didn't join the Berne convention until 1 March 1989.
- cperciva 5y agoRight, there was good reason for including copyright notices everywhere when people started doing it. But now it's just tradition (along with "all rights reserved" which has also lost its purpose).
- kragen 5y ago> Adding copyright notices to every source code file is reasonable because it costs next to nothing. Yes, if your integrity is worthless.
- tsimionescu 5y agoMy company doesn't require this, but I also don't understand in any way how adding copyright boilerplate to each source file has anything to do with the writer's integrity. Are the people in the GNU foundation lacking in integrity, since they have this policy?
- kragen 5y agoPlacing copyright notices on things you don't have a copyright on amounts to making a false claim that they are not only copyrightable but that you own the copyright, hoping to intimidate other people out of exercising their legal rights. Lying in order to intimidate people, particularly to intimidate them into paying you, is not only dishonest but contemptible. It's no different from the mugger who says he owns the Golden Gate Bridge and demands $10 from you to cross it. The GNU foundation, whatever its failings, does not have a policy of claiming copyright on blank lines.
- tsimionescu 5y agoI thought your comentarii was referring to the practice of adding copyright notices to files in general. Specifically adding a copyright notice to an otherwise empty file is indeed scummy.
- randombits0 5y agoTo expand on that idea, purely functional expressions are not copyrightable in the first place. How and when software becomes copyrightable is undefined in law.
- Retr0id 5y agoWhy not? Do you have a reference for that?
- kbutler 5y agoUS Copyright law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 (b)In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. Thus, if it is simply the description of the algorithm to accomplish a process, it isn't copyrightable (functional processes are the domain of patent law, not copyright). But creative ways of describing an idea or process could be copyrighted... Further discussion https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf https://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/software/protection/ https://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/software/protection/
- randombits0 5y agoI, too, miss GrokLaw…
- st_goliath 5y ago> a waste of time because lawyers' answers are always "it depends". Sorry for the little OT rant, but I'll have to object to that. That's IMO less of a lawyer thing, and more a "asking a field expert a generic question and expecting an immediate, brief answer" kind of thing. In my experience, if you straight up ask any field expert, be it a lawyer, a doctor, an engineer, etc... a vague, but obviously case specific question, the real experts will rather try to point out that they lack necessary background information and that the underlying subject matter is not that simple ("It depends", "I'd have to look into this", "Well uhmmm, possibly/maybe/yes/kind of, but...", "It's not that simple"). If you're not particularly familiar with some subject matter, it is kind of hard to gauge that the "simple question" might be very vague, maybe confuse some subject matter and might be edging on a very complex topic. I take it most people here have some sort of programming background? Just try to remember the last family gathering where someone started pestering you about their computer problems, or tried to start small talk about something they picked up in the headlines. Or maybe a meeting with management where you were asked a "but couldn't you just [simply]...." kind of question (or even worse: "exactly how long will this take?") and they tried to press you for a swift, immediate answer. From my experience so far, I'd even go further and suggest to be skeptical of any "expert" who has a habit of confidently answering briefly and to the point.