Copyright dates

[Mark Atwood]

Oh god, yeah.  Stack Overflow copypastes are a constant headache today when
doing due diligence when acquiring tech companies.

Lots of people have been begging Stack Overflow to do something about it.
The CC license that SO defaults all it's content to is not compatible with
any open source or even proprietary license.   They need to change their
TOS to make code snippets be either CC0 or MIT.

(In general, the only CC license that is compatible with anything is CC0.
Any software code licensed under any other CC license cannot be mixed with
anything else.)

..m

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:16 AM Daniel Poirot <dtpoirot at gmail.com> wrote:

> What's fun is hearing "No copyright needed, I got it off Stack Overflow!"
>
> ...wrong
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Mark Atwood <fallenpegasus at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Commercial FOSS audit tools like Protecode and Blackduck will be able to
> recognize the SPDX tags, and the Copyright text.
>
>
> In our file ntpsec/devel/hacking.txt :
>
> We use the SPDX convention for inclusion by reference.  You can read about
> this at
>
>       http://spdx.org/licenses
>
> When you create a new file, mark it as follows (updating the year) as
> required:
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> /* Copyright 2017 by the NTPsec project contributors
>
>  * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause
>
>  */
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
> For documentation:
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> // Copyright 2017 by the NTPsec project contributors
>
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-4.0
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Modify as needed for whatever comment syntax the language or markup uses. Good
> places for these markings are at the end of an extended
>
> header comment, or at the very top of the file.
>
>
> When you modify a file, leave existing copyright markings in place - especially
> all references to Dr. Dave Mills, to Mr. Harlan Stenn, and
>
> to the Network Time Foundation.
>
>
> You *may* add a project copyright and replace the inline license with an
> SPDX tag. For example:
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> /* Copyright 2017 by the NTPsec project contributors
>
>  * SPDX-License-Identifier: NTP
>
>  */
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:44 AM Daniel Poirot <dtpoirot at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Commercial FOSS audit tools like Protecode and BlackDuck will match a
> snippet and attribute to the FOSS project.
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Mark Atwood <fallenpegasus at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's... complicated.
>
> We don't need to have a notice attached to every file, because there is a
> copyright notice attached to the project as a whole, and there is a notice
> attached to each repo.  Individual files generally don't each need their
> own notice, since individual files generally no longer get "detached" from
> a project or tree.
>
> But, if you were to copy in a substantial amount of text from another
> source, you should make sure that the copyright from that source is
> properly declared, right next to the text pulled in.
>
> Also, however, documentation is a bit unusual in that it is much more
> likely to be detached and separately distributed from the rest of the
> project.  We should make sure that if the documentation is ever printed
> out, or is separately displayed on sites like man7.org, that a copyright
> notice should be readable.
>
> ..m
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:55 AM Hal Murray <hmurray at megapathdsl.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> fallenpegasus at gmail.com said:
> > Right now our standard copyright text is "Copyright
> $YEAR_YOU_ARE_WRITING_THI
> > S by the NTP Project contributors"
>
> Should the documentation files have a copyright notice?
>
>
> --
> These are my opinions.  I hate spam.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at ntpsec.org
> http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20170130/4bc6579c/attachment.html>