Copyright notice in XH

Discussions and requests related to new CMSimple features, plugins, templates etc. and how to develop.
Please don't ask for support at this forums!
cmb
Posts: 14225
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:04 am
Location: Bingen, RLP, DE
Contact:

Re: Copyright notice in XH

Post by cmb » Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:07 pm

Holger wrote:So why not keep Peters copyright notice of CMSimple 3.3 as it is/was and put our new stuff above that?
Just Cosmetic :?.
That is basically what has been done. I had added the addtional @autor and @copyright tags for the sake of being complete. In my opinion that is a nice brief history of the project, but I don't mind to remove these lines.
Holger wrote:And we must not take care on things happened after CMSimple 3.3 was released if we do so...
I assume you meant "we don't have to" instead of "we must not" (the latter meaning "wir dürfen nicht", AFAIK). I agree, that we don't have to, but I don't see why we shouldn't if we know what happened.
Holger wrote:It's no option to do that like Gert and reduce the XH - copyright to: "uses code and modules from CMSimple_XH".
ACK. That would be morally wrong, to say the least.
Christoph M. Becker – Plugins for CMSimple_XH

Holger
Site Admin
Posts: 3470
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:10 pm
Location: Hessen, Germany

Re: Copyright notice in XH

Post by Holger » Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:03 pm

cmb wrote:I assume you meant "we don't have to" instead of "we must not" (the latter meaning "wir dürfen nicht", AFAIK).
With "we must not" I meant -> "wir müssen nicht". Wrong :? :?:
cmb wrote:I agree, that we don't have to, but I don't see why we shouldn't if we know what happened.
It seems to me that svasti has started this thread for this reason.
Therefore I want to comment that we are on the safe side if we leave things as they are in the original code.

cmb
Posts: 14225
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:04 am
Location: Bingen, RLP, DE
Contact:

Re: Copyright notice in XH

Post by cmb » Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:27 pm

Holger wrote:With "we must not" I meant -> "wir müssen nicht". Wrong :? :?:
AFAIK, that is wrong, what is backed-up by http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/grammar/must.htm (what is clearly not an authoritative reference, though).
Holger wrote:
cmb wrote:I agree, that we don't have to, but I don't see why we shouldn't if we know what happened.
It seems to me that svasti has started this thread for this reason.
Therefore I want to comment that we are on the safe side if we leave things as they are in the original code.
To avoid any potential misunderstandings, I quote the relevant part of the sources:

Code: Select all

/**
 * The main file of CMSimple_XH.
 *
 * PHP versions 4 and 5
 *
 * @category  CMSimple_XH
 * @package   XH
 * @author    Peter Harteg <peter@harteg.dk>
 * @author    The CMSimple_XH developers <devs@cmsimple-xh.org>
 * @copyright 1999-2009 <http://cmsimple.org/>
 * @copyright 2009-2014 The CMSimple_XH developers <http://cmsimple-xh.org/?The_Team>
 * @license   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html GNU GPLv3
 * @version   SVN: $Id: cms.php 1379 2014-09-21 19:47:28Z cmb69 $
 * @link      http://cmsimple-xh.org/
 */

/*
  ======================================
  CMSimple_XH 1.6.4, 2014092901
  2014-09-29
  based on CMSimple version 3.3 - December 31. 2009
  For changelog, downloads and information please see http://www.cmsimple-xh.org/
  ======================================
  [Please note: URLs in the following Copyright Notice are either void or
  lead to different information as Mr. Harteg sold the code and website
  in Nov. 2012.  Of the four mentioned licenses only the first (GPL 3)
  applies to CMSimple_XH.]

  -- COPYRIGHT INFORMATION START --

  CMSimple version 3.3 - December 31. 2009
  Small - simple - smart
  (c) 1999-2009 Peter Andreas Harteg - peter@harteg.dk

  -- COPYRIGHT INFORMATION END --

  -- LICENCE TYPES SECTION START --

  CMSimple is available under four different licenses:

  1) GPL 3
  From December 31. 2009 CMSimple is released under the GPL 3 licence with no
  link requirments. You may not remove copyright information from the files, and
  any modifications will fall under the copyleft conditions in the GPL 3.

  2) AGPL 3
  You must keep a convenient and prominently visible feature on every generated
  page that displays the CMSimple Legal Notices. The required link to the
  CMSimple Legal Notices must be static, visible and readable, and the text in
  the CMSimple Legal Notices may not be altered. See
  http://www.cmsimple.org/?Licence:CMSimple_Legal_Notices

  3) Linkware / CMSimple Link Requirement Licence
  Same as AGPL, but instead of keeping a link to the CMSimple Legal Notices, you
  must place a static, visible and readable link to www.cmsimple.org with the
  text or an image stating "Powered by CMSimple" on every generated page (place
  it in the template). See
  http://www.cmsimple.org/?Licence:CMSimple_Link_Requirement_Licence

  4) Commercial Licence
  This licence will allow you to remove the CMSimple Legal Notices / "Powered by
  CMSimple"-link at one specific domain. This licence will also protect your
  modifications against the copyleft requirements in AGPL 3 and give access to
  registering in user support forum.

  You may change this LICENCE TYPES SECTION to relevant information, if you have
  purchased a commercial licence, but then the files may not be distributed to
  any other domain not covered by a commercial licence.

  For further informaion about the licence types, please see
  http://www.cmsimple.org/?Licence and /cmsimple/legal.txt

  -- LICENCE TYPES SECTION END --
  ======================================
 */
The second comment (/*) has been there since CMSimple_XH 1.0beta, except the version number of XH, its release date, the version number and release number in the following "based on" part, and for the "[Please note: ...]" part which has been inserted recently to clarify things. The following section ("-- COPYRIGHT INFORMATION START -- [...] -- LICENCE TYPES SECTION END --") is the unmodified copyright and license notice of CMSimple 3.3. The latter has to remain untouched according to GPLv3.

As I understand it, svasti is concerned only about the new docblock comment (/**) which has been introduced with XH 1.6 -- especially about the first @copyright tag.
Christoph M. Becker – Plugins for CMSimple_XH

svasti
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Copyright notice in XH

Post by svasti » Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:20 pm

cmb wrote:As I understand it, svasti is concerned only about the new docblock comment (/**) which has been introduced with XH 1.6 -- especially about the first @copyright tag.
Yes.

(1) I prefer not to mention the present copyright owner of the old code for obvious reasons. If we can avoid this, I would gladly avoid it.

(2) We mention the copyright from 1999-2009. At that time the copyright holder was Harteg. So I find it strange that we would give under copyright 1999-2009 somebody who bought the copyright in 2012.

(3) For the history, it is of course nice to mention something like: Harteg owned and worked on the code under the name CMSimple from 1999-2009, 2010 being the GPL release, and we worked on it from 2009-2014 under the name CMSimple_XH

meltemi
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:11 pm
Location: Franken (Deutschland)
Contact:

Re: Copyright notice in XH

Post by meltemi » Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:55 pm

Holger wrote:With "we must not" I meant -> "wir müssen nicht".
Ihr dürft Euch auf Englisch unterhalten, aber Ihr müßt es nicht ;o)

cmb
Posts: 14225
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:04 am
Location: Bingen, RLP, DE
Contact:

Re: Copyright notice in XH

Post by cmb » Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:13 am

svasti wrote:We mention the copyright from 1999-2009. At that time the copyright holder was Harteg. So I find it strange that we would give under copyright 1999-2009 somebody who bought the copyright in 2012.
Looking at the issue this way, I am confused about what is correct. Actually, it's contradictory to mention (c) 1999-2009 Peter Harteg in the old license section, and (c) 1999-2009 Gert Ebersbach in the new one.

Some "facts" (IANAL):
  • According to GPLv3, we are not allowed to remove or modify the original copyright section
  • Peter has sold the copyright to Gert in 2012
  • Stating a copyright year (or range of years) is important with regard to expiring of the copyright (e.g. X years after the death of the copyright holder)
Now let's imagine the following szenario: the copyright expires 70 years after the copyright owner's death; Peter dies in 2015. Gert dies in 2050. So, when does the copyright expire? According to the license section which must not be changed, it would be in 2085. However, Gert holds the copyright until 2120.

The only logical conclusion I can come up with (IANAL) is that Peter owns the copyright of the version of 2009 (i.e. CMSimple 3.3), and Gert owns the copyright of the following versions (i.e. CMSimple 3.4). However, the changes between 3.3 and 3.4 are so small (only a few lines without any genuine creative work) that they don't even justify their own copyright (IANAL). I wonder what counter-value Gert had received for buying the intellectual rights. Ah, I forgot: the rights on the name!

Anyhow, we have not to forget:
harteg wrote:The copyright notice in all files may be modified to the name of the purchaser.
I prefer to relinquish this permission -- it's unnecessary work.
meltemi wrote:Ihr dürft Euch auf Englisch unterhalten, aber Ihr müßt es nicht ;o)
Well, we're in the English class (aka. forum) here, so: "Say it English!" ;)
Christoph M. Becker – Plugins for CMSimple_XH

Tata
Posts: 3586
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:34 am
Location: Slovakia
Contact:

Re: Copyright notice in XH

Post by Tata » Fri Nov 07, 2014 6:30 am

cmb wrote:Well, we're in the English class (aka. forum) here, so: "Say it English!" ;)
Ja, um ganz einfach zu erklären:
wir müssen = we must / wir müssen nicht = we don't need (we needn't)
wir sollen = we have to / wir sollen nicht = we haven't to (we do not have to)
CMSimple.sk
It's no shame to ask for an answer if all efforts failed.
But it's awful to ask without any effort to find the answer yourself.

mikey
Site Admin
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 3:15 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Copyright notice in XH

Post by mikey » Fri Nov 07, 2014 11:40 am

i agree to the absolute minimum requirement ;)

cmsimple.website

oh !!! a new TLD for us , sweeeeet

meltemi
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:11 pm
Location: Franken (Deutschland)
Contact:

Re: Copyright notice in XH

Post by meltemi » Fri Nov 07, 2014 11:18 pm

cmb wrote:we're in the English class
Yes, some of You have to learn English (usage of must not) ;-)

svasti
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Copyright notice in XH

Post by svasti » Sat Nov 08, 2014 12:00 am

I posted the following in https://programmers.stackexchange.com/
svasti on programmers.stackexchange.com wrote: Since 2009 we are developing a fork of a CMS that was started in 1999 as commercial project, but released 2009 additionally under GPL. The original programmer sold copyright, code, name and website in 2012 to a new owner (who is now using the name and website because they have a high google pagerank).

Should our copyright notice be:

@copyright 1999-2009 name of original programmer
@copyright 2009-2014 our names

or

@copyright 1999-2009 name of new copyright owner
@copyright 2009-2014 our names
There are two answers, the best of them being the following:
Bart van Ingen Schenau on programmers.stackexchange.com wrote: This is venturing close to a request for legal advice, which we can't give. If you want to be really sure what is legally correct, consult a real lawyer.

The way that copyright statements are generally used is that the initial copyright statement indicates who owned the copyright at the time that a work was created, with a year of creation.
If the work is subsequently modified by the same copyright holder, then the list of years in the copyright statement can be extended to include the year of the modification.
If the work is modified by someone else (person, corporation, etc.) who can claim copyright on the modifications, then a new copyright line is added with the name of the copyright holder for the modifications and the year of change.

The basic principle is that you don't modify copyright statements, except to add additional years of modification to your copyright statement.

When forking a repository, you should leave the original copyrights intact and only add your copyright if and when you make changes to a file.
Thus, if you originally forked in 2010 and have not taken over new material from the original repository and only made a change in 2013, the copyright should look like:

@copyright 1999-2010 name of original programmer
@copyright 2013 your names

In most copyright licenses it is not a strict requirement, but it is usually appreciated if you explicitly state which project you forked from and to change references to the project name to the name of your fork in files you changed to avoid confusion with the original if the file is seen in isolation.

Post Reply