Re: RFC: stop doing "grand replace" updates to copyright years

[Wols Lists]

On 15/02/2023 06:23, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > > IMHO it's even simpler - is it fraud? (I don't know the answer, but
> > > it feels like it, and we shouldn't do it without legal advice).
> >
> > The GPL is used for licensing works _as_ _a_ _whole_, so it is
> > definitely not fraud to update the license headers in lockstep.
> > [...]
>
> Well said, thank you!
Sorry, can I re-write that?

An individual source file is an individual work. What happens if I 
decide to add a file under a BSD licence? The copyright ON THAT FILE is 
not GNU, it is not GPL, let's assume no-one has modified it. If that 
file is 100% my BSD-licenced copyright, you changing the copyright 
notice (even if it's just the date!) is fraudulent misrepresentation.

You yourself said "The GPL is used for licensing works _as_ _a_ 
_whole_", that "whole", legally BEING THE BINARY. Otherwise the GPL 
truly would be viral, as detractors like to claim, seizing ownership of 
works that their creators explicitly did NOT place under the GPL.

Look at it another way. If I stick a bunch of, let's say, CDDL files 
(didn't Oracle write CDDL with the express intention of NOT being GPL 
compatible? Sorry if I've got the wrong licence) in, I can freely mix 
that INCOMPATIBLE code with a GPL project AND DISTRIBUTE AS SOURCE. It's 
only when I build a binary, that the "as a whole" kicks in and the 
project becomes non-distributable.

Or another way. The GPL does not (no free licence does) give you the 
permission to alter someone else's licence. That includes altering the 
copyright notice.

(And lastly, when you said that "GNU only requires copyright assignment 
for EMACS" and something else, I'm very sorry but you clearly did not 
read what I wrote. You used present tense, I used past tense. If GNU 
used to require assignment, then a policy of updating the notices every 
year makes sense. But if they DON'T require copyright assignment, and 
they DON'T own the copyright, then changing the copyright notice smacks 
of fraud. Simple as. BUT DOES ANYBODY REALLY CARE? Only the armchair 
lawyers, I guess :-)

Cheers,
Wol