[Ctk-developers] CTK license and copyright

[Luis Ibanez]

Julien,

Removing a copyright notice is a criminal offense
(a misdemeanor) under current US Copyright Laws.

---------------------------------------------------

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

Title 17, Chapter 5,
§ 506. Criminal offenses:


"(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent
intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the
same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with
fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public
distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person
knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with
fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing
on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(e) False Representation. — Any person who knowingly makes a false
representation of a material fact in the application for copyright
registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement
filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than
$2,500.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


When files are copy/pasted or moved between
projects, their original copyright notices must
be kept in place.  It is customary (and legal)
to add the copyright notice of the new project
above the original copyright notice.

The new project will hold the copyright of the
modifications made to the file (if any), while the
copyright of the original file content remains with
the initial project.


Files can only moved between projects when:

A) The license of the source project is compatible
     with the license of the destination project, or

B) When the copyright holder of the first project
     transfers the copyright to the second project, or

C) When the copyright holder of the first project
     relicenses the file to the second project.


The Best practice is to keep a trace of all these
transactions in the NOTICE file at the top of the
project directory.

See for example:
https://github.com/Kitware/ITK/blob/master/NOTICE


     Luis


----------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Julien Finet <julien.finet at kitware.com> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> Some files in CTK have been a direct work over ParaView or Slicer files.
> I don't think their copyright policy allow us to take their rights, so we
> can't just remove their copyrights, can we ?
> It is allowed to have 2 copyrights for 1 file, isn't it?
> Shall we have a "Copyrights" directory where we have all the license files ?
> Please educate me on the best practice here.
> Thanks,
> Julien.
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephen Aylward
> <stephen.aylward at kitware.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dominique,
>>
>> Thanks for asking and checking the files.
>>
>> All of CTK is suppose to be under the Apache 2.0 license.   If you
>> find files with any other licence, please let us know.   We will fix
>> them immediately.
>>
>> Regarding the holder of the copyright - I believe we decided that
>> there would be no single copyright holder for CTK.  The files are held
>> by the individual contributors and/or their institutions.   This is
>> not how I would prefer things, because it creates an impression of
>> complex ownership (whereas the Apache license assures the code will
>> always be free for commercial and non-commercial use, and without
>> patent restrictions to the best of our knowledge).
>>
>> The CTK members should probably re-address copyright assignments.   I
>> suggest we have the assignment go to the Insight Software Consortium
>> (ISC) or some other independent entity.   Hans Johnson at U of Iowa is
>> the current president of the ISC, and he could ask the ISC board to
>> accept CTK as an ISC-sponsored toolkit.   More info on the ISC is at:
>> http://insightsoftwareconsortium.org/
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dominique Belhachemi
>> <domibel at debian.org> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I try to figure out whether or not the CTK source code can be
>> > distributed. Now I am having a couple of questions.
>> >
>> > - Some files in the CTK repository are covered by the ParaView license
>> > version 1.2. Is it possible to add the referenced file
>> > 'License_v1.2.txt' to the repository?
>> >
>> > - The Slicer license is missing as well. I found some statements which
>> > points to dead links:
>> >  "See Doc/copyright/copyright.txt
>> >  or http://www.slicer.org/copyright/copyright.txt for details."
>> >
>> > - Who is the main copyright holder of CTK?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Dominique
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Ctk-developers mailing list
>> > Ctk-developers at commontk.org
>> > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ==============================
>> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D.
>> Director of Medical Imaging Research
>> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office
>> http://www.kitware.com
>> stephen.aylward (Skype)
>> (919) 969-6990 x300
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ctk-developers mailing list
>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org
>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ctk-developers mailing list
> Ctk-developers at commontk.org
> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers
>
>