11–20 of 86 posts
The one confusing thing to me about this is that you're not supposed to append copyright years to a notice when the contents have not changed, yet this script got copyrighted all the way to 1989.
It shouldn't matter because the date of actual first publication would control, not what is on one particular notice.
Google: "(in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.".
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.
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.
Adding copyright notices to every source code file is also pointless, since copyright notices are no longer required to obtain copyright protection.
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.
Yes, if your integrity is worthless.
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.
Adding copyright notices to every source code file is also pointless, since copyright notices are no longer required to obtain copyright protection.
A question of 'law' vs 'facts'
See also https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandjazzmusic/3... ( https://archive.is/sjYJG ), where the rumored settlement payment was £100,000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adding copyright notices to every source code file is also pointless, since copyright notices are no longer required to obtain copyright protection.
Copyright 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'
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.
See also https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandjazzmusic/3... ( https://archive.is/sjYJG ), where the rumored settlement payment was £100,000.