www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - DMD Copyright string

reply "Colin" <grogan.colin gmail.com> writes:
I notice when you run dmd with no args, it will print:
DMD64 D Compiler v2.067.0
Copyright (c) 1999-2014 by Digital Mars written by Walter Bright


Surely that's meant to be 2015?
Walter should prob fix that. Someone could steal D!
Apr 21 2015
next sibling parent reply "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com> writes:
"Colin"  wrote in message news:sbafvqyzjweacrhwdpmo forum.dlang.org... 


 I notice when you run dmd with no args, it will print:
 DMD64 D Compiler v2.067.0
 Copyright (c) 1999-2014 by Digital Mars written by Walter Bright
 
 
 Surely that's meant to be 2015?
 Walter should prob fix that. Someone could steal D!


That's not how copyright works.
Apr 21 2015
parent reply Shachar Shemesh <shachar weka.io> writes:
On 22/04/15 04:42, Daniel Murphy wrote:

 "Colin"  wrote in message news:sbafvqyzjweacrhwdpmo forum.dlang.org...

 I notice when you run dmd with no args, it will print:
 DMD64 D Compiler v2.067.0
 Copyright (c) 1999-2014 by Digital Mars written by Walter Bright


 Surely that's meant to be 2015?
 Walter should prob fix that. Someone could steal D!


 That's not how copyright works.


Unfortunately, you are right. But that's only because the copyright 
system in the USA is completely broken.

It used to work like that. Works that carried no copyright notice used 
to be automatically public domain, and the copyright notice start would 
dictate when the a work of art would fall into the public domain, some 
20 years later.

Under that law, the changes done in 2015 would fall into the public 
domain one year early, around 2034.

Except, as you pointed out, that's not how copyright now works. The 
copyright for DMD would only expire 95 years after Walter dies, 
regardless of what the copyright notice says.

Shachar
Apr 22 2015
next sibling parent reply "weaselcat" <weaselcat gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 at 07:08:05 UTC, Shachar Shemesh 
wrote:

 Except, as you pointed out, that's not how copyright now works. 
 The copyright for DMD would only expire 95 years after Walter 
 dies, regardless of what the copyright notice says.

 Shachar


something tells me it will be more than 95 years by the time 
Walter passes considering Mickey's copyright expires in 8 years : 
)
Apr 22 2015
next sibling parent Andre Kostur <andre kostur.net> writes:
On 2015-04-22 12:13 AM, weaselcat wrote:


 something tells me it will be more than 95 years by the time Walter
 passes considering Mickey's copyright expires in 8 years : )


Well, Mickey's copyright expires _again_ in 8 years...
Apr 22 2015
prev sibling parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 at 07:13:09 UTC, weaselcat wrote:

 On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 at 07:08:05 UTC, Shachar Shemesh 
 wrote:

 Except, as you pointed out, that's not how copyright now 
 works. The copyright for DMD would only expire 95 years after 
 Walter dies, regardless of what the copyright notice says.

 Shachar


 something tells me it will be more than 95 years by the time 
 Walter passes considering Mickey's copyright expires in 8 years 
 : )


It is rather complex in the US... Mickey movies are covered by 95 
years after creation, but D is covered by:

«70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate 
authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, 
whichever expires first»

https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
Apr 22 2015
next sibling parent "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 at 13:58:50 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:

 On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 at 07:13:09 UTC, weaselcat wrote:

 On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 at 07:08:05 UTC, Shachar Shemesh 
 wrote:

 Except, as you pointed out, that's not how copyright now 
 works. The copyright for DMD would only expire 95 years after 
 Walter dies, regardless of what the copyright notice says.

 Shachar


 something tells me it will be more than 95 years by the time 
 Walter passes considering Mickey's copyright expires in 8 
 years : )


 It is rather complex in the US... Mickey movies are covered by 
 95 years after creation, but D is covered by:


95 years after _publication_...
Apr 22 2015
prev sibling parent ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:58:48 +0000, Ola Fosheim Gr=C3=B8stad wrote:


 On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 at 07:13:09 UTC, weaselcat wrote:

 On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 at 07:08:05 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote:

 Except, as you pointed out, that's not how copyright now works. The
 copyright for DMD would only expire 95 years after Walter dies,
 regardless of what the copyright notice says.

 Shachar


 something tells me it will be more than 95 years by the time Walter
 passes considering Mickey's copyright expires in 8 years : )


=20
 It is rather complex in the US... Mickey movies are covered by 95 years
 after creation, but D is covered by:
=20
 =C2=AB70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorsh=


ip,

 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation,
 whichever expires first=C2=BB
=20
 https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm


insane numbers. i'd say that they should be divided at least by 10.=
Apr 22 2015
prev sibling parent Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On 4/22/15 3:08 AM, Shachar Shemesh wrote:

 On 22/04/15 04:42, Daniel Murphy wrote:

 "Colin"  wrote in message news:sbafvqyzjweacrhwdpmo forum.dlang.org...

 I notice when you run dmd with no args, it will print:
 DMD64 D Compiler v2.067.0
 Copyright (c) 1999-2014 by Digital Mars written by Walter Bright


 Surely that's meant to be 2015?
 Walter should prob fix that. Someone could steal D!


 That's not how copyright works.


 Unfortunately, you are right. But that's only because the copyright
 system in the USA is completely broken.

 It used to work like that. Works that carried no copyright notice used
 to be automatically public domain, and the copyright notice start would
 dictate when the a work of art would fall into the public domain, some
 20 years later.

 Under that law, the changes done in 2015 would fall into the public
 domain one year early, around 2034.


Not really, the "changes" are derived works. Sure, maybe the changes 
could be public domain, but what is the point of using changes when you 
cannot use the base? In any case, I think there isn't any "gotcha" 
issues here, we simply update the date, and we're good.

-Steve
Apr 22 2015
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 4/21/2015 11:20 AM, Colin wrote:

 Surely that's meant to be 2015?
 Walter should prob fix that. Someone could steal D!


All the replies, and no PRs. Sigh!

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/4615
Apr 25 2015