Copyright notices in modules

[syphilis]

Hi,

What are the rules/conventions (if any) regarding the dates that appear in copyright notices in a module's pod ?

If I have a module that contains "Copyright 2005 Sisyphus" and I update that module this year, am I supposed to change that to "Copyright 2005, 2011, Sisyphus" or to "Copyright 2005-2011, Sisyphus" or doesn't it matter ? Can I just leave that copyright notice in its original state ?

Is there anything wrong with doing simply "Copyright Sisyphus" and leaving it at that ?

And does it matter that I can't produce a birth certificate showing my name as simply "Sisyphus" ?

It's perhaps obvious that none of this matters greatly to me personally, but I believe there are some perl distros where copyright notices are considered important, and it's the POV of these particular "perl distros" that I'm trying to suss out .... with a view to accommodating their requirements.

Cheers,
Rob

[ambrus]

Firstly, let me state that I am not a lawyer.

My opinion is that the year of the first publication should be enough in the Copyright notice, but adding later years does no harm, so feel free to do whatever you want. It is much more important that you comply with any terms the license you're distributing the module under requires, such as keeping a detailed changelog in case of the perl artistic license, etc.

[JavaFan]

First of all, in most countries, including the USA, no copyright notice is needed. The act of creating (or "fixating an idea") is enough.

How a copyright notice may be styled seems to vary from country to country, but it's usually, "Copyright symbol", "Publication Date", "Name of Copyright Holder". Some countries allow the word "Copyright" instead of the copyright symbol.

[Anonymous Monk]

For definitive information about US Copyrights, go here: http://www.copyright.gov.   There’s no need to speculate.

The notice-requirements require the symbol and/or the word, the claimant’s name or fictitious name, and the year.

A copyright will persist for quite a few years after your death.   (Ahem...)   Each time I make a major change to a copyrighted work, and file a new registration form, I update the year on my notices, which include both the first and the most-recent date of registration.   Someone searching the LOC database on either year would find my certificate.   But I am talking about a commercial product that (still) provides quite a bit of my daily bread, and against which I have indeed had to file some “cease and desist” letters, one of which was briefly (and of course, unsuccessfully) challenged.   In that context, attention to detail was important.   But for your Perl module, I would suggest that “the choice, oh Registered Copyright-Owner, is mostly yours.”

[bart]

I personally don't worry about it too much, but I'd add each year that you did more significant changes than just a bug fix, and a range if continuous or with only small gaps. The longer ago, the larger the gaps may be... It doesn't have to be exact, they'll forget about it in no time anyway; it is just to give people some clue.

[DStaal]

The only thing that would cause a problem with 'Copyright Sisyphus' is that you are assuming the default copyright terms: No one but you is allowed to make or distribute copies. If you want to distribute it as open source and allow others to share it (which you imply by putting it on CPAN...) you should list which license you are using. 'The same terms as Perl' is... barely adequate, as Perl has been distributed under a couple of different licenses in it's history. Better to specify exactly.

[JavaFan]

The only thing that would cause a problem with 'Copyright Sisyphus' is that you are assuming the default copyright terms: No one but you is allowed to make or distribute copies.

That's only true in a few countries. In most countries, including the past 20+ years in the USA, the mere fact of creating the work makes it copyrighted. Absence of a copyright notice does not mean there's no copyright.

You may only assume a work isn't copyrighted if either the copyright has expired, or if it's explicitly stated the work is placed in the public domain.

[tilly]

You may only assume a work isn't copyrighted if either the copyright has expired, or if it's explicitly stated the work is placed in the public domain.

Contrary to popular belief, stating that something belongs in the public domain does not actually put it there. Instead it is effectively just a bare license, without what lawyers call "an interest". So it may be revoked at any time by the author, or in the event of the author's death by the legal heir.

So the user doesn't actually get any meaningful legal protection. That's bad. But it gets worse. Releasing your code and calling it public domain means that you have the possibility of being sued if it doesn't work like someone else thought it would.

It is much, much better to use a simple, permissive license instead of trying to make it public domain. It protects your users better (you are less able to revoke it), and protects you better (you get some protection against lawsuits).

As for copyrights expiring, the simple rule for that which is likely work for all of our lifetimes is, "Is this text older than Mickey Mouse?" Seriously, every time Disney's famous movie Steamboat Willie threatens to become public domain, the law is changed to extend copyright.

But there is another way for something to become public domain. By law, work created by the government is not copyrightable.

(Note. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. But I have spent time with people who have a serious interest in the law.)

Update: JavaFan is correct. I am describing US law here. Other countries vary widely. Though the Mickey Mouse rule is as close to universally true as Disney's lobbying can make it.

[DStaal]

True, you don't even need the notice. But the point remains that if that's all you are putting then legally CPAN is infringing on your copyright when it mirrors your modules. (Note: I am not a lawyer, I'm sure a lawyer could state why CPAN would be found not at fault. But I'm sure if it came up CPAN would have to remove your modules.)

If they want to submit it as an open-source module, they need to specify that it is being made available under an open-source license.

[DrWhy]

Personally, I would include a new date anytime I make any change at all, tending toward a range of years, 2005-2010, rather than a list of years, e.g., 2005,2007,2010. But that's just what makes sense to me. Like everyone else who's posted here, I'm still drinking heavily (haven't passed the bar...)

[syphilis]

The replies have been interesting and informative ... as always.
I think they cover all I really need (plus some more ... as always :-)

Many thanks, Monks !

Cheers,
Rob

[kirillm]

CPAN::Meta::Spec defines a license field. Nice if you keep your META updated - in certain situation it's more useful than a copyright notice, because can be processed pragmatically.