Please provide correct copyright information

[ghost]

Its one thing to provide insider jokes (#655), it another to distract users and to provide false legal information.

So the website should contain the correct copyright-holder.

Matter of transparency.

[mde]

This is a bona fide bug in the source code for the Geddy site. I'm not sure why it got stripped out, but you'll note that the README for the project, as well as the majority of the source code (e.g., https://github.com/geddy/geddy/blob/master/lib/controller/base_controller.js) contains a very clear indication of the copyright owner (that's me).

I am not a lawyer, but in general there is a lot of confusion around what the year in copyright notices even mean (apparently it's the year in which you are asserting the copyright claim begins). This is not a US registered trademark, so protection is apparently fairly weak, but as long as I consistently assert copyright ownership, I can be said to be protecting my copyright, for whatever that is worth. I'm not sure who would even attempt to make money off the name of this open source project, so the copyright is of dubious value to me -- and the copyright notice provides no legal protection, rights, or benefits to the users of the project. So clearly nobody is being actively harmed by this bug.

However, having said that, it's weird that that got stripped in the process of shipping the Web site, and we definitely should include a copyright owner if we're asserting that someone owns the copyright. I'll definitely fix it when I get a chance.

Thanks for the heads up.

[mde]

Agree 100% it's an unhelpful message. Are you interested in helping us fix the Web site up? I can add you as a Geddy org member. The site code really ought to be pulled out into its own repo, but right now it's in a subdirectory in the main geddy repo: https://github.com/geddy/geddy/tree/master/site

[ckhatton]

The latest date is used, as long as it appears on the work. I think in UK law, as piece of work is copyrighted for 50 years. I am not sure how this applies to things like artwork.

I have previously created a pull request to rectify this issue #730, as the Apache License snippet has to be added.

Strange, @mde is not within the organization.

I noticed recently GitHub applied an update in which you can choose whether to be visible on an organisation. The default is 'private'. I've made myself 'public' in the organisation settings, which is why you can currently see me there.

the website needs anyway a bit of polishing

Yeah, I also agree the website should have a bit more flair like http://sailsjs.com/. Though it is still nice and clean how it currently is.

[mde]

I have toggled my membership to public, FWIW. I had no idea they'd implemented a visibility feature.

Would be nice to give the site a facelift, perhaps a new design. Agree that giving people clear intro and direction is good. Similar to what I tried to achieve with the EJS site: http://ejs.co/ The current site has had this design for several years now. A change would be nice.

@ckhatton The year is superfluous, and in fact the copyright is not particularly valuable. :) But the copyright notice should say who it belongs to. That attribution should not have gotten removed when the site was built, so this is a genuine bug to fix.