Re: copyright vs. license
Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:08:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield <email@example.com> writes:
> > > It's not required. And I get bored by updating them.
> > Yes, the year is required, and moreover, you need to add a new year
> > every time there is a new publication in a year not already mentioned
> > (without removing the old years, since the new publication is a
> > derived work).
> This hasn't been necessary since the 1970s.
You only get triple damages and other goodies out of the copyright
system if the person who copied it knew they were violating
copyright. If you have a proper copyright notice (which must have the
date) then they are presumed to know. If you have an invalid one,
then they are not, and you must now prove their state of mind, which
is not impossible, but still reasonable.