[ntp:questions] poll interval - RFC compliance question

Unruh unruh-spam at physics.ubc.ca
Mon Jun 16 16:05:05 UTC 2008

jra at febo.com (John Ackermann N8UR) writes:

>Unruh said the following on 06/15/2008 11:35 AM:

>> Yes, it is pedantry, since the copyright is automatic and does not need to
>> be asserted. Ie, that notice is infomational, not a legal requirement. 
>> It simply informs the reader as to who actually owns the copyright. What is
>> not mere pedantry is where or not this claim is actually true. Many people
>> have contributed to ntpd, and unless they all transfered copyright to David
>> Mills, then the claim that he owns the copyright is really false. They all
>> do (David has copyright interest in all of the works since the other
>> people's work is derivative of his work, but others have copyright interest
>> as well.) To keep things perfectly clean, David shoule ask anyone who
>> contributes to transfer their copyright to him. 

>While the notice is not mandatory, it does have legal value -- in
>particular, it negates a defense of innocent infringement.  And, to
>claim the international protection of the UCC treaty I referred to in my
>other message, you do need to include the notice.

>Your point about whether the copyright notice is accurate is
>interesting.  I wonder if it would even be possible at this point to
>determine who all the contributors are!

>I thought that Linux used the CREDITS file as a list of copyright
>holders, but I just looked at some source and that doesn't appear to be
>the case -- instead, each source file has its own copyright notice in
>the name of one or more people, with the COPYING file not listing any
>copyright owners at all.  I guess that has the effect of putting the
>whole kernel tree under the GPL, but the resulting object file(s) as a
>collective work of all the contributors.

>I just looked at the ntp 4.2.0 source (the only tree I have handy at the
>moment) and the random source files I looked at do not have any
>copyright notice at all, so the Linux model doesn't appear to be in place.

In the COPURIGHT file containing Mill's claim of copyright holder, is also
a long list of authors which that files asserts as authors of various parts
of ntp. Now if those authors actually tranfered copyright to Mills, then
this is fine, but I tend to doubt it. In that case all those authors are
the actual copyright holders or share the copyright under derived works.


More information about the questions mailing list