Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Two question which I have to pass on

[Karl Berry]

    http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

And specifically,
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#401
which says (full text below):

  in the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating
  previously published material, the year date of first publication of
  the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. 

Well, that seems clear.  It's not required to list previous years,
contrary to my previous statements.  Cool!

Would one of you (Noah?) like to write a concise note for rms/eben,
arguing that the stated reason in maintain.texi for listing all years
(older versions going into the public domain) is not persuasive?

    http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.html#derivative

Yes, this is supporting evidence that listing only the year of the
derivative work is acceptable legally; the user of the work is
responsible for figuring out which parts have fallen into the public
domain.

Thanks,
karl

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#401 --

Form of Notice.  If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of
the following three elements:

(1) the symbol <copyright> (the letter C in a circle), or the word
    Copyright, or the abbreviation Copr.; and

(2) the year of first publication of the work; in the case of
    compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published
    material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or
    derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a
    pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying text
    matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards,
    stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles; and

(3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation
    by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known
    alternative designation of the owner.