comparison admin/notes/copyright @ 76011:e8bee7dc3bd9

*** empty log message ***

76010:bb0664431a90

that any file with less than 15 lines of actual content is trivial. If
a file is auto-generated (eg ldefs-boot.el) from another one in the
CVS, then it does not really matter about adding a copyright statement
to the generated file.

However, here is a quote from Matt Norwood (Software Freedom Law
Center) that suggests we should revise the above policy about trivial
files:

    If FSF has a strong policy reason notices off of files it
    considers "trivial", this will take a lot more bookkeeping; it
    also runs the risk of these "trivial" files later growing into
    non-trivial files, and being in the tree without any record of
    authorship. All in all, I think it's a better policy to attach the
    notice and let future authors decide if something is trivial when
    they want to reuse it elsewhere.
    [...]
    In general, copyright law will step back and look at the overall "work"
    consisting of all the assembled components working together as a system;
    it will apply protection and permissions to this system, not to its
    subcomponents. If parts of it are recombined into another system, it
    will consider the protections and permissions for each of the source
    components only in order to assess the overall status of the work again.
    The assessment of whether a set of components is entitled to copyright
    protection is the degree to which they display "creativity": not as
    atomic units, but as parts of a system working in concert. Thus, several
    "trivial" components working together in some coherent system might be
    protectible.

RMS feels, though, that in trivial files (eg etc/FTP), having a
license notice looks odd. Matt Norwood has confirmed it is not
_necessary_ to have licenses in such files, so we are sticking with
the policy of no licenses in "trivial" files.

NB consequently, if you add a lot of text to a small file, consider
whether your changes have made the file worthy of a copyright notice,
and if so, please add one.

The years in the copyright notice should be updated every year (see
file "years" in this directory). The PS versions of refcards etc
should display copyright notices (an exception to the rule about
"generated" files), but these can just display the latest year. The

  public domain, leave alone.

etc/edt-user.doc
  - update BOTH notices in this file

etc/letter.pbm,letter.xpm
  - trivial, no notice needed.
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-02/msg00324.html>

etc/FTP, ORDERS

 usg5-4.h, which was and is copyright FSF.

aix3-2.h, bsd386.h, hpux8.h, hpux9.h, netbsd.h, sunos4-0.h
  started trivial, grown in tiny changes.


Someone might want to tweak the copyright years (for dates before
2001) that I used in all these files.

Note: erring on the side of caution, I also added notices to some

etc/gnus-logo.eps, gnus-booklet.ps, gnus-refcard.ps
 just to be safe, papers are on the way for the "Gnus logo", even
 though it is very similar to the already-assigned "Emacs logo".


etc/emacs.csh
  does rms want simple license restored for this?


etc/ms-kermit - no copyright, but ms-7bkermit has one


etc/TUTORIAL* (translations)
  switch to GPL (see english TUTORIAL)
  rms: "We can leave the TUTORIAL translations alone until their
  maintainers update them."


lib-src/etags.c - no 'k.* arnold' in copyright.list'
 rms: "That is ok, in principle. I used free code released by Ken
 Arnold as the starting point. However, it may be that we need to get
 and insert whatever his license was for his code."

 under GPL, so OK?

 - 1984 version of ctags, with no copyright, posted to net.sources:
   http://groups.google.com/group/net.sources/msg/a21b6c21be12a98d


lwlib/lwlib-Xaw.c
  copyright Chuck Thompson; but under GPL, so OK?

lwlib/lwlib-Xlw.c, lwlib-Xm.c, lwlib-Xm.h, xlwmenu.c
  copyright lucid and FSF, but under GPL, so OK?

  Library" have 1992 Lucid copyright?
  2) add or remove FSF copyrights to any files we have made non-trivial
  changes to since 1992?


oldXMenu/
 - should there be any FSF copyrights at all in here? Some were added
   in 2005, without licence notices. Was this right?
   Eg don't think copyright.h should have FSF copyright!
   Should add copyright details for X11R1 to the README file. (see

GPL. We check it into Emacs CVS and make non-trivial changes to it.
Should we add a FSF copyright or not? Can we add such a notice as soon
as we check it check it in to CVS?


oldXMenu/Makefile.in, Makefile, Imakefile, descrip.mms, insque.c
  - issues described in mail to rms, 2006/12/17.
rms: "I have asked for lawyer's advice about these."



76011:e8bee7dc3bd9

that any file with less than 15 lines of actual content is trivial. If
a file is auto-generated (eg ldefs-boot.el) from another one in the
CVS, then it does not really matter about adding a copyright statement
to the generated file.

Legal advice says that we could, if we wished, put a license notice
even in trivial files, because copyright law in general looks at the
overall work as a whole. It is not _necessary_ to do so, and rms
prefers that we do not. This means one needs to take care that trivial
files do not grow and become non-trivial without having a license
added. NB consequently, if you add a lot of text to a small file,
consider whether your changes have made the file worthy of a copyright
notice, and if so, please add one.

The years in the copyright notice should be updated every year (see
file "years" in this directory). The PS versions of refcards etc
should display copyright notices (an exception to the rule about
"generated" files), but these can just display the latest year. The

  public domain, leave alone.

etc/edt-user.doc
  - update BOTH notices in this file

etc/emacs.csh
  - keep simple license for this simple file

etc/letter.pbm,letter.xpm
  - trivial, no notice needed.
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-02/msg00324.html>

etc/FTP, ORDERS

 usg5-4.h, which was and is copyright FSF.

aix3-2.h, bsd386.h, hpux8.h, hpux9.h, netbsd.h, sunos4-0.h
  started trivial, grown in tiny changes.

netbsd.h:
Roland McGrath said to rms (2007/02/17): "I don't really remember
anything about it. If I put it in without other comment, then probably
I wrote it myself."


Someone might want to tweak the copyright years (for dates before
2001) that I used in all these files.

Note: erring on the side of caution, I also added notices to some

etc/gnus-logo.eps, gnus-booklet.ps, gnus-refcard.ps
 just to be safe, papers are on the way for the "Gnus logo", even
 though it is very similar to the already-assigned "Emacs logo".


etc/ms-kermit - no copyright, but ms-7bkermit has one


etc/TUTORIAL* (translations)
  switch to GPL (see english TUTORIAL)
  rms: "We can leave the TUTORIAL translations alone until their
  maintainers update them."


[waiting for legal advice]
lib-src/etags.c
 - was it ok to use Ken Arnold's code as a basis?
   1984 version of ctags, with no copyright, posted to net.sources:
   http://groups.google.com/group/net.sources/msg/a21b6c21be12a98d)
   version of etags.c in emacs-16.56 seems to be derived from this
   (duplicate typos in comments).


[waiting for legal advice on lwlib/*]
lwlib/lwlib-Xaw.c
  copyright Chuck Thompson; but under GPL, so OK?

lwlib/lwlib-Xlw.c, lwlib-Xm.c, lwlib-Xm.h, xlwmenu.c
  copyright lucid and FSF, but under GPL, so OK?

  Library" have 1992 Lucid copyright?
  2) add or remove FSF copyrights to any files we have made non-trivial
  changes to since 1992?


[waiting for legal advice]
oldXMenu/
 - should there be any FSF copyrights at all in here? Some were added
   in 2005, without licence notices. Was this right?
   Eg don't think copyright.h should have FSF copyright!
   Should add copyright details for X11R1 to the README file. (see

GPL. We check it into Emacs CVS and make non-trivial changes to it.
Should we add a FSF copyright or not? Can we add such a notice as soon
as we check it check it in to CVS?


[waiting for legal advice]
oldXMenu/Makefile.in, Makefile, Imakefile, descrip.mms, insque.c
  - issues described in mail to rms, 2006/12/17.
rms: "I have asked for lawyer's advice about these."