Add "The Bootstrap Authors" to copyright notices

[cvrebert]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

• Since we don't have a CLA, Twitter most likely doesn't have copyright on the contributions of non-Twitter contributors; the contributors or their employers most likely have copyright on their contributions.
• So the current copyright notice is outdated/inaccurate, in that it does not acknowledge these contributors. Due to the large number of contributors, it's common to refer to them using a group noun rather than listing them all individually directly in such copyright notices.
• It's my new employer's policy to suggest rectifying this type of inaccuracy when contributing to a project. Hence this PR.

CC: @twbs/team

[XhmikosR]

Can't we license Bootstrap to Bootstrap Authors and completely remove the
Twitter references?

I mean Mark and Jacob worked on Twitter back then, but does that make
twitter a copyright holder?

I'm not a lawyer either just thinking out loud.

BTW we could enforce a CLA from now on.
On May 19, 2016 19:58, "Chris Rebert" [email protected] wrote:

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

• Since we don't have a CLA, Twitter most likely doesn't have
  copyright on the contributions of non-Twitter contributors; the
  contributors or their employers most likely have copyright on their
  contributions.
• So the current copyright notice is outdated/inaccurate, in that it
  does not acknowledge these contributors. Due to the large number of
  contributors, it's common to refer to them using a group noun rather than
  listing them all individually directly in such copyright notices.
• It's my new employer's policy to suggest rectifying this type of
  inaccuracy when contributing to a project. Hence this PR.

CC: @twbs/team https://github.com/orgs/twbs/teams/team

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

#19936
Commit Summary

• Add "The Bootstrap Authors" to copyright notices

File Changes

• M Gruntfile.js
  https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/19936/files#diff-0 (1)
• M LICENSE
  https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/19936/files#diff-1 (1)
• M README.md
  https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/19936/files#diff-2 (2)
• M docs/assets/js/ie-emulation-modes-warning.js
  https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/19936/files#diff-3 (1)
• M docs/assets/js/ie10-viewport-bug-workaround.js
  https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/19936/files#diff-4 (1)
• M docs/assets/js/src/application.js
  https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/19936/files#diff-5 (1)
• M docs/assets/scss/docs.scss
  https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/19936/files#diff-6 (1)
• M docs/getting-started/browsers-devices.md
  https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/19936/files#diff-7 (1)
• M grunt/bs-commonjs-generator.js
  https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/19936/files#diff-8 (1)
• M grunt/change-version.js
  https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/19936/files#diff-9 (1)
• M nuget/bootstrap.nuspec
  https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/19936/files#diff-10 (2)
• M nuget/bootstrap.sass.nuspec
  https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/19936/files#diff-11 (2)
• M package.json
  https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/19936/files#diff-12 (3)
• M scss/bootstrap.scss
  https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/19936/files#diff-13 (1)

Patch Links:

• https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/19936.patch
• https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/19936.diff

—
You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#19936

[cvrebert]

Can't we license Bootstrap to Bootstrap Authors and completely remove the Twitter references?

Without Twitter's authorization, no, IMHO. Quoting from the MIT license:

Copyright (c) 2011-2016 Twitter, Inc.
Permission is hereby granted, [...], subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice [...] shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

I mean, if we could delete Twitter, why couldn't someone else delete The Bootstrap Authors from their fork?

Also, it seems a little petty to deny them 1 line in the copyright notices, considering they helped start/promote the project and aren't mentioned much elsewhere in the docs these days. Why be unnecessarily mean to a large corporation with lots of lawyers that's historically been nice to the project?

I mean Mark and Jacob worked on Twitter back then, but does that make twitter a copyright holder?

Twitter most likely has copyright over the contributions Mark & Jacob made while employed by Twitter. While the code has evolved a lot since then, it's arguably still a derivative work. (I don't pretend to know enough about derivative works in copyright law to be able to say for sure.) I would rather err on the legal safe side and leave their copyright notice intact.

[XhmikosR]

All right, so I guess the simple solution is this patch for the time being.

The patch looks good to me then.

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Chris Rebert [email protected]
wrote:

Can't we license Bootstrap to Bootstrap Authors and completely remove the
Twitter references?

Without Twitter's authorization, no, IMHO. Quoting from the MIT license:

Copyright (c) 2011-2016 Twitter, Inc.
Permission is hereby granted, [...], subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice [...] shall be included in all copies or
substantial portions of the Software.

I mean, if we could delete Twitter, why couldn't someone else delete The
Bootstrap Authors from their fork?

Also, it seems a little petty to deny them 1 line in the copyright
notices, considering they helped start/promote the project and aren't
mentioned much elsewhere in the docs these days. Why be unnecessarily mean
to a large corporation with lots of lawyers that's historically been nice
to the project?

I mean Mark and Jacob worked on Twitter back then, but does that make
twitter a copyright holder?

Twitter most likely has copyright over the contributions Mark & Jacob made
while employed by Twitter. While the code has evolved a lot since then,
it's arguably still a derivative work. (I don't pretend to know enough
about derivative works in copyright law to be able to say for sure.) I
would rather err on the legal safe side and leave their copyright notice
intact.

—
You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#19936 (comment)

[patrickhlauke]

SGTM

[cvrebert]

@mdo ?

[mdo]

Seems fine by me—their copyright is still intact and our project is updated to reflect the contributions of the entire community.