From: <ma...@gm...> - 2009-03-23 20:02:49
|
Hi all Now you have got the legal side sorted out, for which I am very glad :) We need to have a serious discussion about the name we use. Many people have commented in the past on the importance of using the name "Tiki" not "TikiWiki" * Indeed 3.0 now shows this as its default logo. * Using "Tiki" will also fit in with the name of the Foundation. * It does not preclude the use of "TikiWiki" as well. * "Tiki" has been in use from the very early days of the project. * Not tying everything we do to a wiki is very useful for some of us. There are I know others who think "TikiWiki" is just fine. Also it important not to totally detach ourselves from the wiki. So I would like to suggest the following should be used (it is meant to be a workable compromise): (c) Copyright 2002-2009 by authors of the Tiki Wiki/CMS/Groupware Project Note the space between Tiki and Wiki What do you all think? Matthew On 23 Mar 2009, at 10:37, Jean-Marc Libs wrote: > On 3/22/09, Michael Risch <Mic...@ma...> wrote: >> All - >> >> To clarify (and state more strongly what I said in the last post): >> 1. For joint works (which this is, so long as each author is a >> joint contributor and not assigning to a non-profit), the copyright >> term in the U.S. is the death of the last surviving author +70 >> years. Note that this date will differ for different versions, as >> the authors are different. > > That's perfect, and in tune with most of the rest of the world. > Since expiration is not an issue, the date we are concerned with is > the start of the work, to remind that it's always been copyrighted > from the start. > >> 2. The Statute (17 U.S.C. 401(b)(2)) says this about the notice: >> "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." This means that 2002-2009 OR 2009 >> is acceptable AND NOTHING ELSE. > > So I understand the *first* publication of the joint work would be > 2002. > > As a conclusion, I believe the best we can have is: > (c) Copyright 2002-2009 by authors of the TikiWiki CMS/Groupware > Project > > And we'll need some script in the release process which always puts > the current year instead of 2009... :-( > >> 3. Here is the copyright office circular on this: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html >> >> 4. Note that a copyright registration must ALSO be made to get the >> benefit of the notice within 90 days of publication. >> >> I realize this is a pain and that you don't like it, but if you >> aren't going to take the steps to get the benefit of the statute, >> then don't bother putting the notice in at all. That's an >> appropriate choice in the cost/benefit tradeoff - there will still >> be copyright protection. This is all I'll say on the issue - if >> you all want to go pay a different lawyer to tell you the same >> thing, my feelings won't be hurt. > > We are very thankful for your work. It's just that a lot of us are not > famailiar with the specifics of US copyright law. The US is among the > last countries to sign the Berne Convention, and we are more used to > the Berne Convention logic (automatic copyright, no notice required). |