2014-03-18 10:25 GMT+08:00 Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx>: > 2014-02-19 13:16 GMT+08:00 Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx>: >> 2014-02-15 1:14 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:27:17AM +0800, Barry Song wrote: >>>> 2014-02-13 0:38 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:26:35AM +0800, Barry Song wrote: >>>> >> > Well, your 2012 change doesn't seem to be "significant" to warrent a >>>> >> > normal copyright update, but the update is usually "less strict" than an >>>> >> > original mark, so that might be ok, now that I review these closer. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > But I'd still prefer to get the opinion of your lawyer about this. >>>> >> >>>> >> Greg, thanks. i will ask csr lawyer to give some feedback if i can :-) >>>> >> >>>> >> i am not an expert of copyright and i am really ignorant on it. in my >>>> >> shallow understand, it seems it is difficult to evaluate what is >>>> >> "significant" and what is not important as it highly depends on the >>>> >> personal opinion? is this something like "there are a thousand Hamlets >>>> >> in a thousand people's eyes"? >>>> > >>>> > It does "depend", but the "general" rule that most everyone follows, and >>>> > what I have been advised to stick to, is "1/3 of the file is >>>> > modified/added to" by a company/developer. If that happens, then a >>>> > copyright mark is allowed. That has worked well over the many years of >>>> > me having to deal with this, but the issue of "extending" the mark >>>> > hasn't really been discussed, so I don't know if that same rule applies >>>> > here or not. >>>> > >>>> > Feedback from your lawyer would be great to have on this, thanks. >>>> > >>>> >>>> Greg, i am inviting our lawyer Cherrie into this, as she is maybe >>>> busy, so we might wait some time. >>> >>> In my research, it's become apparent that the copyright notice should >>> just be removed entirely from the files, as they don't mean anything >>> from a legal standpoint, so updating them shouldn't really be done >>> either, as they don't mean anything. Although one could argue, if they >>> don't mean anything, updating it shouldn't matter, but I don't think >>> that the transitive is true here... >>> >>> It will be interesting to find out what your lawyer says about this. >> >> Greg, all your comments have been forwarded to our layer and counsel. >> pls wait for some time :-) > > Greg, > > here i got some comments from the lawyer. > " > the reason that people want the copyright notice to include 2014 is to > ensure that the copyrighted works have the longest possible life > available under copyright protection. > > if the changes that have been made to CSR’s source code for the driver > program (which was originally authored in 2011 - entirely using CSR > original source code) are insignificant — for example, just adding or > editing a few lines of code among hundreds or thousands (or more) > lines of code, those changes are unlikely to be seen as a "derivative > work" that would be the subject of independent copyright protection > (for the changed portion) as of the year in which those changes were > made. If significant changes were made to the source code, such that > new functionality were added, or a similar upgrade (for efficiency, > etc.), or something along those lines — even if the changes only > amounted to 5 or 10% of the code total — that could be deemed a > derivative work that would be able to have its own copyright notice in > the year in which the changes were created/authored. There is no hard > and fast rule on the percentage. > > for the general guideline that if one-third or more of the program’s > source code has been updated/changed/added, then an updated year can > be set forth in the copyright notice. That guideline, while useful as > a minor rule of thumb, is not required by law or anything else to my > knowledge — the crux of the issue is really whether the changes amount > to a derivative work." > > and after talking with the lawyer, if a new year is added in copyright > notice, it is for protecting the changes in 2013. so "extend the > copyright year" should be wrong. it is not extending the exiting > copyright, it is a new year to protect the new codes changed in the > year. sorry for typo here, after talking with the lawyer, if a new year is added in copyright notice, it is for protecting the changes in the *new year*. so "extend the copyright year" should be wrong. it is not extending the existing copyright, it is a new year added to protect the new codes changed in the year. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
