Subject: Re: [boost] Copyright-less licence references
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-09-15 19:55:42
On 16/09/2015 04:34, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> Sorry, but it is. The copyright information you type in your source code
> starting to lie practically immediately you commit the code. It does not
> hold the water in any format proceedings, lying to reader, and annoying to
> maintain to author. It does not says what specifically one has a copyright
> to and is wrong practically everywhere in boost.
No, it's not lying in the slightest.
The important thing is who the *original author* of the work was (in
this case, the individual source file). This is the person in the
copyright notice and the year in which they created this file. (As
others have noted, in most cases the specific year is not that
interesting other than to indicate that it's after a certain date, since
copyright tends to be tied to the author's lifetime rather than the
origin date.)
That original author has then chosen to license the work by the BSL,
which in turn gives *other* authors the right to effectively "borrow"
the original author's copyright and distribute the work (the file) and
make derivative works based on it. The derivative works are still
copyright by the original author and date unless both parties agree that
the changes are substantive enough to warrant an additional or
replacement notice.
It is perfectly valid for the copyright notice to never be updated, even
if the file is changed substantially.
It is *not* valid for the original notice to be modified without
specific agreement by the original person. It is *not* valid to remove
it entirely, as then you do not know that the license grant is valid or
who made it. It is *not* valid to specify a non-legal-entity as the
copyright holder (so you can't say "lib X contributors").