Bug#659574: lintian: legally wrong statement: copyright-with-old-dh-make-debian-copyright
Hi,
Thanks for your quick response.
In retrospect, my initial bug report may have had some skewed view on
the copyright law since Japan being more like French law on this subject.
I still think that this lintian report is *pedantic* to nitpick on one
requirement and misses other requirements. Let me make a bit balanced
requests.
(1) consideration to avoid negative sentence. (see below)
(2) explicitly mention US being a signatory to the Berne Convention
(3) change this to priority pedantic.
(4) add other essential requirements to establish prima facie case
I will touch each points as below:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:49:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
>
> > I'm fairly sure (having read the relevant law several times, as well as
> > legal analyses of it) that Lintian's statement is correct in US law,
> > although possibly poorly phrased.
Although your new text improves a lot, I am not very happy to see "is
not considered as a valid way".
> @@ -264,9 +264,15 @@ Severity: wishlist
> Certainty: certain
> Info: The copyright file contains the incomplete Debian packaging
> copyright boilerplate from older versions of <tt>dh_make</tt>.
> - <tt>(C)</tt> is not considered as a valid way to express the copyright
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> - ownership. The word <tt>Copyright</tt> or the © symbol should be used
> - instead or in addition to <tt>(C)</tt>.
> + <tt>(C)</tt> alone is not considered a valid copyright notice in at least
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> + some countries. The word <tt>Copyright</tt> or the © symbol should be
> + used instead or in addition to <tt>(C)</tt>.
> + .
If the new text was not a negative sentence but a simple affirmative
sentence, I am fine. <--- for (1)
For example:
The use of the word <tt>Copyright</tt> or the © symbol is considered
to be a part of a valid copyright notice requirement in at least some
countries.
Do you know some previous case that the use of "(C)" alone for copyright
notice caused some problem to establish prima facie case for
infringement?
> + Copyright notices like this are, in any country that's a signatory to the
> + Berne Convention, not required to claim copyright on a work, but their
> + presence may allow claiming additional damages should a copyright case go
> + to court. If you provide a notice, you may as well provide one that's
> + legally valid.
Since the US law is always the most central issue for Debian, I would
rather see less ambiguous statement by inserting "including USA" after
"Berne Convention". <--- for (2)
Now, let me explain why I think this to be "pedantic". <--- for (3)
I know the use of the symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word
“Copyright,” or the abbreviation “Copr.” is part of the valid way
stipulated by the "17 USC § 401 - NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT: VISUALLY
PERCEPTIBLE COPIES" as (b)(1), but this code involves more than this
(b)(1) part.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/401
Official examples are given as "37 CFR 201.20 - METHODS OF AFFIXATION
AND POSITIONS OF THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE ON VARIOUS TYPES OF WORKS."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/201/20
Most pertinent section is:
| (g) Works reproduced in machine-readable copies. For works reproduced in
| machine-readable copies (such as magnetic tapes or disks, punched cards,
| or the like, from which the work cannot ordinarily be visually perceived
| except with the aid of a machine or device, 1 each of the following
| constitute examples of acceptable methods of affixation and position of
| notice:
| (1) A notice embodied in the copies in machine-readable form in such a
| manner that on visually perceptible printouts it appears either with or
| near the title, or at the end of the work;
| (2) A notice that is displayed at the user's terminal at sign on;
| (3) A notice that is continuously on terminal display; or
| (4) A legible notice reproduced durably, so as to withstand normal use,
| on a gummed or other label securely affixed to the copies or to a box,
| reel, cartridge, cassette, or other container used as a permanent
| receptacle for the copies.
Assuming the packaging related codes and description contents are
copyrightable, I am not sure if simply placing “Copyright” in an obscure
location in this debian/copyright file complies to these requirements.
This is neither
* "appears either with or near the title, or at the end of the work",
* "displayed at the user's terminal at sign on",
* "continuously on terminal display", nor
* "label securely affixed to the copies or to a box".
So why pick only on "(C)" thing while such withholding essential
requirements to establish prima facie case for infringement? This is
the reason I consider this lintian check statement to be "pedantic".
In this respect, adding following may balances above issue: <--- for (4)
In order to help such court case, it is also recommended to include
proper copyright notice for each file or make build script print out
such text.
This may be an idea. But I sure will hate to see such terminal print
out :-) That is another reason to make this pedantic.
Now I understand the reason why GNU and BSD always place their copyright
notice at the top of each file in the source code. (This was some
mystery until I read US copyright regulation basics[1].)
Regards,
Osamu
[1] RESOURCES:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf Copyright Basics
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf Copyright Notice
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38b.pdf
Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the URAA
Reply to: