This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: OpenBSD configurations for gcc 3.3.x
Yes, of course you did not quote the more important part of that reference:
The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.
Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989. Although works published without notice before that date could have entered the public domain in the United States, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) restores copyright in certain foreign works originally published without notice. For further information about copyright amendments in the URAA, request Circular 38b.
As far as I know there is not a single instance in court where for
recent works, the presence or absence of a coypright notice played
a major role. One reason that it is very important to be aware of this
change is that the burden is on you to ensure that something is not
copyrighted, and the lack of a message is no longer significant in
this determination. I still find it common that people say "oh there
is no copyright notice there, so it's OK to copy it". Yes, the language
of 504 suggests that this may affect damages, but I sure would not count
on it :-)
Of course it is indeed prudent to put a visible notice on all documents,
but the exact form and the use of (C) [which was the genesis of this
thread] are no longer legally significant. Note also that the discussion
of whether you have to say 1991-2005, or mention every year between is
also irrelevant, there is no particular reason to prefer explicit
mention of every year in between.