Etydhv

Patience, young "Padovan"

How do I create uniquely male characters?

How is the claim "I am in New York only if I am in America" the same as "If I am in New York, then I am in America?

Schwarzchild Radius of the Universe

How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?

Can I make popcorn with any corn?

Can Medicine checks be used, with decent rolls, to completely mitigate the risk of death from ongoing damage?

Motorized valve interfering with button?

How can the DM most effectively choose 1 out of an odd number of players to be targeted by an attack or effect?

XeLaTeX and pdfLaTeX ignore hyphenation

How do you conduct xenoanthropology after first contact?

Why did the Germans forbid the possession of pet pigeons in Rostov-on-Don in 1941?

Divisibility of sum of multinomials

How is the relation "the smallest element is the same" reflexive?

Non-Jewish family in an Orthodox Jewish Wedding

What is the meaning of "of trouble" in the following sentence?

How to determine if window is maximised or minimised from bash script

Can an x86 CPU running in real mode be considered to be basically an 8086 CPU?

Can I interfere when another PC is about to be attacked?

Chess with symmetric move-square

Is there a minimum number of transactions in a block?

Can you lasso down a wizard who is using the Levitate spell?

cryptic clue: mammal sounds like relative consumer (8)

How can I fix this gap between bookcases I made?

Is it legal to have the “// (c) 2019 John Smith” header in all files when there are hundreds of contributors?

Does an employee have the right to use a CTA?How do I properly specify the year(s) of copyright?Which author/copyright holder “type” is allowed in the MIT license? Pseudonym, Company name, …?Copyright assignments in GermanyCan I change the copyright license, with this text in the CLA?Can I remove some copyright holders from headers and replace them by a generic “and contributors”?Can a GitHub Organization assert copyright?If there is no copyright notice, is the license applied?How should I identify myself in a copyright notice / license?Copyright notices and multiple developers

3

Companies use headers like

// Copyright 2011 The Go Authors.

But countless projects with a single maintainer have

// Copyright 2011 John Smith

even though they have hundreds of contributors, all of whom own their contributions.

Is this ok to only include the owner in the header?

Thanks

copyright programming

share|improve this question

asked 7 hours ago

AlexAlex

1474

add a comment | 

3

Companies use headers like

// Copyright 2011 The Go Authors.

But countless projects with a single maintainer have

// Copyright 2011 John Smith

even though they have hundreds of contributors, all of whom own their contributions.

Is this ok to only include the owner in the header?

Thanks

copyright programming

share|improve this question

asked 7 hours ago

AlexAlex

1474

add a comment | 

Companies use headers like

// Copyright 2011 The Go Authors.

But countless projects with a single maintainer have

// Copyright 2011 John Smith

even though they have hundreds of contributors, all of whom own their contributions.

Is this ok to only include the owner in the header?

Thanks

copyright programming

share|improve this question

asked 7 hours ago

AlexAlex

1474

share|improve this question

asked 7 hours ago

AlexAlex

1474

share|improve this question

asked 7 hours ago

AlexAlex

1474

asked 7 hours ago

AlexAlex

1474

asked 7 hours ago

AlexAlex

1474

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

6

As far as I am aware, all FLOSS licenses that deal with copyright notices only require the preservation of notices that exist. Each author had the opportunity to add their own name to header when they made their contribution. If they chose not to do so, there is no existing notice from that author to preserve. There is never (as far as I know) any requirement to proactively add a notice that an author chose not to include.

Not having a copyright notice for some copyright holder is not inherently legally problematic, either, since copyright notices have virtually no legal function. Since a majority of nations ratified the Berne Convention, copyright rights are automatically granted at the time of a work's creation, irrespective of any copyright notice on the work.

If someone removes existing copyright notices from another author, then that's obviously not allowed by the license (and is typically illegal in general).

share|improve this answer

edited 5 hours ago

answered 7 hours ago

apsillers♦apsillers

15.9k12653

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Why is removing a copyright notice "typically illegal in general"? For example if a work is in the public domain, or its copyright has expired, I don't see how removing the copyright notice would be "illegal in general" in that case.
  
  – Brandin
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "619"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8168%2fis-it-legal-to-have-the-c-2019-john-smith-header-in-all-files-when-there%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

6

As far as I am aware, all FLOSS licenses that deal with copyright notices only require the preservation of notices that exist. Each author had the opportunity to add their own name to header when they made their contribution. If they chose not to do so, there is no existing notice from that author to preserve. There is never (as far as I know) any requirement to proactively add a notice that an author chose not to include.

Not having a copyright notice for some copyright holder is not inherently legally problematic, either, since copyright notices have virtually no legal function. Since a majority of nations ratified the Berne Convention, copyright rights are automatically granted at the time of a work's creation, irrespective of any copyright notice on the work.

If someone removes existing copyright notices from another author, then that's obviously not allowed by the license (and is typically illegal in general).

share|improve this answer

edited 5 hours ago

answered 7 hours ago

apsillers♦apsillers

15.9k12653

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Why is removing a copyright notice "typically illegal in general"? For example if a work is in the public domain, or its copyright has expired, I don't see how removing the copyright notice would be "illegal in general" in that case.
  
  – Brandin
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

6

As far as I am aware, all FLOSS licenses that deal with copyright notices only require the preservation of notices that exist. Each author had the opportunity to add their own name to header when they made their contribution. If they chose not to do so, there is no existing notice from that author to preserve. There is never (as far as I know) any requirement to proactively add a notice that an author chose not to include.

Not having a copyright notice for some copyright holder is not inherently legally problematic, either, since copyright notices have virtually no legal function. Since a majority of nations ratified the Berne Convention, copyright rights are automatically granted at the time of a work's creation, irrespective of any copyright notice on the work.

If someone removes existing copyright notices from another author, then that's obviously not allowed by the license (and is typically illegal in general).

share|improve this answer

edited 5 hours ago

answered 7 hours ago

apsillers♦apsillers

15.9k12653

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Why is removing a copyright notice "typically illegal in general"? For example if a work is in the public domain, or its copyright has expired, I don't see how removing the copyright notice would be "illegal in general" in that case.
  
  – Brandin
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

As far as I am aware, all FLOSS licenses that deal with copyright notices only require the preservation of notices that exist. Each author had the opportunity to add their own name to header when they made their contribution. If they chose not to do so, there is no existing notice from that author to preserve. There is never (as far as I know) any requirement to proactively add a notice that an author chose not to include.

Not having a copyright notice for some copyright holder is not inherently legally problematic, either, since copyright notices have virtually no legal function. Since a majority of nations ratified the Berne Convention, copyright rights are automatically granted at the time of a work's creation, irrespective of any copyright notice on the work.

If someone removes existing copyright notices from another author, then that's obviously not allowed by the license (and is typically illegal in general).

share|improve this answer

edited 5 hours ago

answered 7 hours ago

apsillers♦apsillers

15.9k12653

share|improve this answer

edited 5 hours ago

answered 7 hours ago

apsillers♦apsillers

15.9k12653

answered 7 hours ago

apsillers♦apsillers

15.9k12653

answered 7 hours ago

apsillers♦apsillers

15.9k12653