From: Jonathon McKitrick
Subject: Any need for modelines, license text in private code?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1154405293.844534.291350@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
Just a silly question, but if I'm the only developer working on a
codebase that will not become public, is there any need for the CL
files to have modelines, license blurbs, copyright and such in each
file?

From: Pisin Bootvong
Subject: Re: Any need for modelines, license text in private code?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1154419105.707395.10230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
> Just a silly question, but if I'm the only developer working on a
> codebase that will not become public, is there any need for the CL
> files to have modelines, license blurbs, copyright and such in each
> file?

No. As a matter of fact, it doesn't even have to compile or be
readable.  ;-)
From: Pascal Bourguignon
Subject: Re: Any need for modelines, license text in private code?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87odv4vcb4.fsf@thalassa.informatimago.com>
"Jonathon McKitrick" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Just a silly question, but if I'm the only developer working on a
> codebase that will not become public, is there any need for the CL
> files to have modelines, license blurbs, copyright and such in each
> file?

However, how do you make sure your files stay private?  Are you
writing them on a computer in a Faraday cage, not connected to the
internet, without any external mass memory device, and enclosed in a
7-foot thick bronze walled 4D hypercube?


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/

HANDLE WITH EXTREME CARE: This product contains minute electrically
charged particles moving at velocities in excess of five hundred
million miles per hour.
From: Jonathon McKitrick
Subject: Re: Any need for modelines, license text in private code?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1154446105.075694.254370@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> However, how do you make sure your files stay private?  Are you
> writing them on a computer in a Faraday cage, not connected to the
> internet, without any external mass memory device, and enclosed in a
> 7-foot thick bronze walled 4D hypercube?

The Faraday cage was converted into a much-needed office.  Seriously.
We had one at my old job.  Yes, I'm connected to the Internet.  I
should be receiving my external drive this week.  7-foot thick was too
expensive.  Had to settle for 5.

Anyway, is there a recommended file header anywhere that covers the
bases?
From: OMouse
Subject: Re: Any need for modelines, license text in private code?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1154447139.367972.114900@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Just stick in a "Copyright, August 2006 - Jonathon McKitrick". Helps
you remember the month you wrote it and your name.

Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> > However, how do you make sure your files stay private?  Are you
> > writing them on a computer in a Faraday cage, not connected to the
> > internet, without any external mass memory device, and enclosed in a
> > 7-foot thick bronze walled 4D hypercube?
>
> The Faraday cage was converted into a much-needed office.  Seriously.
> We had one at my old job.  Yes, I'm connected to the Internet.  I
> should be receiving my external drive this week.  7-foot thick was too
> expensive.  Had to settle for 5.
>
> Anyway, is there a recommended file header anywhere that covers the
> bases?
From: Jonathon McKitrick
Subject: Seriously: Any need for modelines, license text in private code? (Copyright question)
Date: 
Message-ID: <1154545634.520100.152590@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
OMouse wrote:
> Just stick in a "Copyright, August 2006 - Jonathon McKitrick". Helps
> you remember the month you wrote it and your name.

Is that really all you need?  I picked up 'Math You Can't Use' by
Klemens, and I'm trying to make sure my proprietary, non-public code
meets the basic requirements for copyright protection.
From: Nathan Baum
Subject: Re: Seriously: Any need for modelines, license text in private code? (Copyright question)
Date: 
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608022033430.2294@localhost>
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Jonathon McKitrick wrote:

> OMouse wrote:
>> Just stick in a "Copyright, August 2006 - Jonathon McKitrick". Helps 
>> you remember the month you wrote it and your name.
>
> Is that really all you need?  I picked up 'Math You Can't Use' by 
> Klemens, and I'm trying to make sure my proprietary, non-public code 
> meets the basic requirements for copyright protection.

There's only one basic requirement for copyright protection: write it. 
When you write (or record, or film) something, you have a copyright on it. 
A copyright notice is not a legal requirement in many countries.

A notice *may* help your case if you need to bring suit against somebody 
who's violating your copyright. This will depend upon the law where you 
are, but typically the notice makes it harder to plead certain kinds of 
defenses against the charge.

It may also be particularly useful for the people on your team, if you 
don't work alone. If the code is to be kept private, then it would 
probably be useful for them to be able to distinguish private code from 
public code. Even if you work alone, it may be useful to jog your memory. 
If the project contains only private code, though, it might not be so 
useful, but it's unlikely to be harmful.
From: George Neuner
Subject: Re: Seriously: Any need for modelines, license text in private code? (Copyright question)
Date: 
Message-ID: <5me4d2p856antpspokncgis1fv8h8630d9@4ax.com>
On 2 Aug 2006 12:07:14 -0700, "Jonathon McKitrick"
<···········@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>OMouse wrote:
>> Just stick in a "Copyright, August 2006 - Jonathon McKitrick". Helps
>> you remember the month you wrote it and your name.
>
>Is that really all you need?  I picked up 'Math You Can't Use' by
>Klemens, and I'm trying to make sure my proprietary, non-public code
>meets the basic requirements for copyright protection.


             DISCLAIMER -- I am not an attorney

I don't know where you are, but in the US, there are 3 types of
copyright: implicit, explicit and registered.  All are provisionally
enforcible depending upon the nature of the infringement.

An implicit copyright exists simply by authoring the work.  No notice
is required to have an implicit copyright, however it is not legally
enforcible.

An explicit copyright exists if a suitable copyright notice is
attached to the work.  Explicit copyrights are free to use and offer a
reasonable degree of protection.

The registered copyright offers the strongest protection.  It requires
registration with the US Copyright Office ($$$) and notice attached to
the work.  Registered copyrights are usually reserved for published
works.

UK and Canada have copyright laws very similar to the US.  Most WIPO
countries respect the US explicit copyright or local equivalent. 

All copyrighted material is subject to "fair use", the terms of which
vary by locality and may conflict with your expectations of
protection.  If no outsider will ever see your source then it doesn't
matter what you do.  However, if you intend to publish your source
anywhere or to provide it to your clients, then you should, at very
least, use an explicit copyright.  

In any event, you should definitely consult an IP attorney if you are
unsure how to proceed.

             DISCLAIMER -- I am not an attorney

George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
From: Rob Warnock
Subject: Re: Seriously: Any need for modelines, license text in private code? (Copyright question)
Date: 
Message-ID: <3ZCdneH22IibS0_ZnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
George Neuner  <·········@comcast.net> wrote:
+---------------
| I don't know where you are, but in the US, there are 3 types of
| copyright: implicit, explicit and registered.  All are provisionally
| enforcible depending upon the nature of the infringement.
| 
| An implicit copyright exists simply by authoring the work.  No notice
| is required to have an implicit copyright, however it is not legally
| enforcible.
+---------------

Yes it is. This whole categorization changed in 1989 when the U.S.
finally(!) became a signatory to the Berne Convention on Copyrights.
I don't know the exact nuances of the changes, but the "born
copyrighted" presumption now applies in the U.S., too. See the
last two paragraphs of the "History of copyright" section of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright>, and also the second
paragraph of the section on "Obtaining and enforcing copyright":

    In the United States, copyright has relatively recently been
    made automatic (in the style of the Berne Convention), which
    has had the effect of making it appear to be more like a property
    right. Thus, as with property, a copyright need not be granted
    or obtained through official registration with any Government
    Office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for
    example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing,
    sheet music, photograph, a videotape or a letter), the copyright
    holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights.

Though it goes on to say that registration *before* any infringement
may increase the damages the copyright holder might be able to
recover in a lawsuit.


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock			<····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607
From: George Neuner
Subject: Re: Seriously: Any need for modelines, license text in private code? (Copyright question)
Date: 
Message-ID: <s498d25d10cgvq8es9pjfk0sgi2qrp4f99@4ax.com>
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:07:18 -0500, ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:

>George Neuner  <·········@comcast.net> wrote:
>+---------------
>| I don't know where you are, but in the US, there are 3 types of
>| copyright: implicit, explicit and registered.  All are provisionally
>| enforcible depending upon the nature of the infringement.
>| 
>| An implicit copyright exists simply by authoring the work.  No notice
>| is required to have an implicit copyright, however it is not legally
>| enforcible.
>+---------------
>
>Yes it is. This whole categorization changed in 1989 when the U.S.
>finally(!) became a signatory to the Berne Convention on Copyrights.
>I don't know the exact nuances of the changes, but the "born
>copyrighted" presumption now applies in the U.S., too. See the
>last two paragraphs of the "History of copyright" section of
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright>, and also the second
>paragraph of the section on "Obtaining and enforcing copyright":
>
>    In the United States, copyright has relatively recently been
>    made automatic (in the style of the Berne Convention), which
>    has had the effect of making it appear to be more like a property
>    right. Thus, as with property, a copyright need not be granted
>    or obtained through official registration with any Government
>    Office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for
>    example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing,
>    sheet music, photograph, a videotape or a letter), the copyright
>    holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights.
>
>Though it goes on to say that registration *before* any infringement
>may increase the damages the copyright holder might be able to
>recover in a lawsuit.
>
             Disclaimer -- I am not an attorney.

Lots of reasonable sounding laws are virtually unenforcible.  At
present, the law regarding implicit copyrights happens to be one of
them.

You are absolutely correct that the 1989 law made implicit copyright
enforcible ... in theory ... but courts have routinely rejected
implicit copyrights in the absence of further steps taken to protect
the origin of the work because without a chain of custody it is very
difficult to establish both authorship and timeline.  [Of course,
there are always high profile exceptions and these claims tend to do
better with jury trials than with judge decisions.]

Further, regardless of international convention and the type of
copyright employed, in the US all works are still subject to certain
"fair" uses without the author's consent.  Under US law "fair use" is
not proscribed but is, rather, a nebulous concept having just a few,
broadly specified, conditions.  In the past, courts have tended to
interpret "fair use" rather generously in the absence of malicious or
commercial intent.  [Some recent decisions have taken a more
restrictive view of "fair use" but it is still early to say it is a
trend.]

Also, with respect to prior restriction (aka "prior enforcement", aka
the DRM model) current US copyright law contradicts itself internally
and also conflicts with US consumer protection law.  There is no
agreement on the correct interpretations of the current laws and the
recent spate of haphazard court rulings has reflected that.

Plus the 1989 law is not retroactive and so does not apply to anything
authored prior to its passage.  For such works without a notice, the
author's prior intent to restrict use cannot be established even if
authorship can be.  (This has nothing to do with the OP's question
about new works, but has to be said anyway as a reminder.)

             Disclaimer -- I am not an attorney.


That all said, I do expect going forward that things will change to be
more in favor of enforcement.  But, for now, I think it would be
foolish to rely on the courts to protect you.  Better to use an
explicit copyright notice and be certain.

And please do not rely on legal advice you get from newsgroups.
Consult an IP attorney if you have questions about your rights.

George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
From: Nathan Baum
Subject: Re: Seriously: Any need for modelines, license text in private code? (Copyright question)
Date: 
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608052100110.21556@localhost>
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006, George Neuner wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:07:18 -0500, ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>
>> George Neuner  <·········@comcast.net> wrote:
>> +---------------
>> | I don't know where you are, but in the US, there are 3 types of
>> | copyright: implicit, explicit and registered.  All are provisionally
>> | enforcible depending upon the nature of the infringement.
>> |
>> | An implicit copyright exists simply by authoring the work.  No notice
>> | is required to have an implicit copyright, however it is not legally
>> | enforcible.
>> +---------------
>>
>> Yes it is. This whole categorization changed in 1989 when the U.S.
>> finally(!) became a signatory to the Berne Convention on Copyrights.
>> I don't know the exact nuances of the changes, but the "born
>> copyrighted" presumption now applies in the U.S., too. See the
>> last two paragraphs of the "History of copyright" section of
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright>, and also the second
>> paragraph of the section on "Obtaining and enforcing copyright":
>>
>>    In the United States, copyright has relatively recently been
>>    made automatic (in the style of the Berne Convention), which
>>    has had the effect of making it appear to be more like a property
>>    right. Thus, as with property, a copyright need not be granted
>>    or obtained through official registration with any Government
>>    Office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for
>>    example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing,
>>    sheet music, photograph, a videotape or a letter), the copyright
>>    holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights.
>>
>> Though it goes on to say that registration *before* any infringement
>> may increase the damages the copyright holder might be able to
>> recover in a lawsuit.
>>
>             Disclaimer -- I am not an attorney.
>
> Lots of reasonable sounding laws are virtually unenforcible.  At
> present, the law regarding implicit copyrights happens to be one of
> them.
>
> You are absolutely correct that the 1989 law made implicit copyright
> enforcible ... in theory ... but courts have routinely rejected
> implicit copyrights in the absence of further steps taken to protect
> the origin of the work because without a chain of custody it is very
> difficult to establish both authorship and timeline.  [Of course,
> there are always high profile exceptions and these claims tend to do
> better with jury trials than with judge decisions.]

Well, you did previously say that "implicit copyrights" are "not legally
enforcible", which to my ears is somewhat different from saying that
"they make it harder to prove infringement".

It was already noted that explicit copyright notices and/or registration 
makes it easier to prove an infringement and may mean you receive more 
compensation.

> Further, regardless of international convention and the type of
> copyright employed, in the US all works are still subject to certain
> "fair" uses without the author's consent.  Under US law "fair use" is
> not proscribed but is, rather, a nebulous concept having just a few,
> broadly specified, conditions.  In the past, courts have tended to
> interpret "fair use" rather generously in the absence of malicious or
> commercial intent.  [Some recent decisions have taken a more
> restrictive view of "fair use" but it is still early to say it is a
> trend.]

That's not really relevant to the question of whether your should use a 
copyright notice, is it? Whether you put in a notice, or pay to have your 
copyright registered, people can still make the same "fair use" of your 
work.

> Also, with respect to prior restriction (aka "prior enforcement", aka
> the DRM model) current US copyright law contradicts itself internally
> and also conflicts with US consumer protection law.  There is no
> agreement on the correct interpretations of the current laws and the
> recent spate of haphazard court rulings has reflected that.

What's this "prior enforcement" somebody was apparently talking about?

> Plus the 1989 law is not retroactive and so does not apply to anything
> authored prior to its passage.  For such works without a notice, the
> author's prior intent to restrict use cannot be established even if
> authorship can be.  (This has nothing to do with the OP's question
> about new works, but has to be said anyway as a reminder.)
>
>             Disclaimer -- I am not an attorney.
>
>
> That all said, I do expect going forward that things will change to be
> more in favor of enforcement.  But, for now, I think it would be
> foolish to rely on the courts to protect you.  Better to use an
> explicit copyright notice and be certain.

But you *still* have to rely on the courts to protect you.

> And please do not rely on legal advice you get from newsgroups.
> Consult an IP attorney if you have questions about your rights.
>
> George
> --
> for email reply remove "/" from address
>
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Seriously: Any need for modelines, license text in private code? (Copyright question)
Date: 
Message-ID: <819Bg.9322$Vq1.540@tornado.socal.rr.com>
Nathan Baum wrote:
> Well, you did previously say that "implicit copyrights" are "not legally
> enforcible",

You have to register the copyright before you bring suit.  Hence, in 
some important sense, implicit copyrights aren't legally enforcable. IANAL.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
     tentacles, not enough chops.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: Seriously: Any need for modelines, license text in private code? (Copyright question)
Date: 
Message-ID: <yzl8xm2vklg.fsf@OSX663.local>
Darren New <····@san.rr.com> writes:
> Nathan Baum wrote:
>> Well, you did previously say that "implicit copyrights" are "not legally enforcible",
>
> You have to register the copyright before you bring suit.

The above is not true (in the United States).  Here you can sue
someone for infringement, even though your work is not registered.
However, if you register your work before the infringement occurs
(or within three months of publication) you not only have an easy way
to prove that you are the owner, but may be able to recover statutory
damages (without proving specific loss), and attorney fees.
From: George Neuner
Subject: Re: Seriously: Any need for modelines, license text in private code? (Copyright question)
Date: 
Message-ID: <jn1bd2tvb08oud3vuuvtfhjdhrgggoibvj@4ax.com>
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 21:10:14 +0100, Nathan Baum
<···········@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 5 Aug 2006, George Neuner wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:07:18 -0500, ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>>
>>> George Neuner  <·········@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> +---------------
>>> | I don't know where you are, but in the US, there are 3 types of
>>> | copyright: implicit, explicit and registered.  All are provisionally
>>> | enforcible depending upon the nature of the infringement.
>>> |
>>> | An implicit copyright exists simply by authoring the work.  No notice
>>> | is required to have an implicit copyright, however it is not legally
>>> | enforcible.
>>> +---------------
>>>
>>> Yes it is. This whole categorization changed in 1989 when the U.S.
>>> finally(!) became a signatory to the Berne Convention on Copyrights.
>>> I don't know the exact nuances of the changes, but the "born
>>> copyrighted" presumption now applies in the U.S., too. See the
>>> last two paragraphs of the "History of copyright" section of
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright>, and also the second
>>> paragraph of the section on "Obtaining and enforcing copyright":
>>>
>>
>> You are absolutely correct that the 1989 law made implicit copyright
>> enforcible ... in theory ... but courts have routinely rejected
>> implicit copyrights in the absence of further steps taken to protect
>> the origin of the work because without a chain of custody it is very
>> difficult to establish both authorship and timeline.  [Of course,
>> there are always high profile exceptions and these claims tend to do
>> better with jury trials than with judge decisions.]
>
>Well, you did previously say that "implicit copyrights" are "not legally
>enforcible", which to my ears is somewhat different from saying that
>"they make it harder to prove infringement".
>
>It was already noted that explicit copyright notices and/or registration 
>makes it easier to prove an infringement and may mean you receive more 
>compensation.

             Disclaimer -- I am not an attorney

As long as we're going through it ...

Even explicit copyrights are not really enough.  To claim infringement
of a copyright, you must prove that your work predates the alleged
infringing work.  Even though the explicit copyright notice contains
author and date, you still must take additional steps to protect the
timeline because judges/juries are aware that dates can be forged.

Registered copyrights protect the timeline of your work automatically
through the registration process.  That still won't help if it can be
proven that the alleged infringing work was authored prior to the
copyright.  In regards to time, copyrights are _not_ like patents (the
holder of a patent is, by law, considered the originator regardless of
the date of the infringing work).



>> Further, regardless of international convention and the type of
>> copyright employed, in the US all works are still subject to certain
>> "fair" uses without the author's consent.  Under US law "fair use" is
>> not proscribed but is, rather, a nebulous concept having just a few,
>> broadly specified, conditions.  In the past, courts have tended to
>> interpret "fair use" rather generously in the absence of malicious or
>> commercial intent.  [Some recent decisions have taken a more
>> restrictive view of "fair use" but it is still early to say it is a
>> trend.]
>
>That's not really relevant to the question of whether your should use a 
>copyright notice, is it? Whether you put in a notice, or pay to have your 
>copyright registered, people can still make the same "fair use" of your 
>work.

My point here was simply that there are many different notions of what
"fair use" means ... for example, every WIPO country has a different
standard.  What constitutes "fair use" in any particular place may not
fit well with the author's expectations about her rights.

The fact is that "fair use", in the US at least, is completely ad hoc.
What is considered fair in one context may be considered infringement
in a different context.



>> Also, with respect to prior restriction (aka "prior enforcement", aka
>> the DRM model) current US copyright law contradicts itself internally
>> and also conflicts with US consumer protection law.  There is no
>> agreement on the correct interpretations of the current laws and the
>> recent spate of haphazard court rulings has reflected that.
>
>What's this "prior enforcement" somebody was apparently talking about?

"Prior enforcement" means actively preventing the conditions of a
potential transgression.  Instead of putting up a sign that says "keep
off the grass" you build a fence so no one can even step on the grass.

Prior to the DMCA, US copyright law did not allow this - an author had
to wait until her work was infringed and then was allowed suit to
recover damages.  At the behest of the entertainment industry, DMCA
changed this rule to allow "locking" of a work to prevent infringement
a priori.  It also made attempting to defeat such a lock a criminal
offense.  However the lock and associated penalty rules are in direct
conflict with the fair use rules and also conflict with provisions of
the Consumer Protection Act.

The DMCA lock rules are the origin of DRM and all its problems.

             Disclaimer -- I am not an attorney


George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
From: Nathan Baum
Subject: Re: Any need for modelines, license text in private code?
Date: 
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608012009571.17336@localhost>
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Pascal Bourguignon wrote:

> "Jonathon McKitrick" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
>> Just a silly question, but if I'm the only developer working on a
>> codebase that will not become public, is there any need for the CL
>> files to have modelines, license blurbs, copyright and such in each
>> file?
>
> However, how do you make sure your files stay private?  Are you
> writing them on a computer in a Faraday cage, not connected to the
> internet, without any external mass memory device, and enclosed in a
> 7-foot thick bronze walled 4D hypercube?

You should really have upgraded to the iron hypercube by now.
From: Jonathon McKitrick
Subject: Re: Any need for modelines, license text in private code?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1154467968.566976.245090@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
Nathan Baum wrote:
> > However, how do you make sure your files stay private?  Are you
> > writing them on a computer in a Faraday cage, not connected to the
> > internet, without any external mass memory device, and enclosed in a
> > 7-foot thick bronze walled 4D hypercube?
>
> You should really have upgraded to the iron hypercube by now.

I would have, but remodeling a Faraday cage into cubicles is a lot more
expensive than I thought it would be.