uncopyrightable files - give info how to handle files with unknown authors but uncopyrightable

[matkoniecz]

#52 (comment) has an useful answer that I think deserves to be in the FAQ

---

Original content:

Boilerplate config files are fairly typical, sometimes config files are extremely simple and therefore not covered by copyright.

FAQ at https://reuse.software/faq/ has relevant "What to do with uncopyrightable files?"

It is important to note that you can only do this for your own works. If the file was authored by someone else, you must declare their copyright and license in the header.

One of real cases from a real project (due to NGI0) - https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/blob/master/app/src/test/resources/mockito-extensions/org.mockito.plugins.MockMaker

To quote the file in the entirety

mock-maker-inline

Tracking down original author of this config file is not reasonable use of time of anybody and is not useful.

My current solution is to use reuse addheader --copyright="noone, file too simple to be covered by copyright" --license=CC0 --explicit-license "#{file}" but according to the FAQ this is incorrect.

And specifying author of the commit here would be incorrect, he is not the original author of this boilerplate.

[matkoniecz]

I would recommend some way to specify about file: "this is so simple that it is not copyrightable at all"

Other real examples include .png file with a green rectangle, vector file with a blue filled circle and so on.

[silverhook]

@matkoniecz AFAIK, under Polish copyright law, you cannot dedicate something to public domain, which is why in that case CC0-1.0 works as a very permissive license instead (and e.g. just stating it’s public domain might not work).

It also has to be said that the notice of authorship (and copyright ownership) is the author’s (and copyright owner’s) right – so, if the author did not care or want to be listed as such, no-one can force them nor is anyone else obliged to dig up who it is to state that.

So IMHO it would be both legal and at least when it comes to the REUSE helper tool, valid to list the copyright holder in something that is probably not copyrightable, as “Anonymous” and offer a contact to the project …but!

That being said, for practical reasons, it might make sense to still mention the author/“copyright holder” who dedicating this to public domain. And that is, so people have a contact, whom to contact, if they need to have anything clarified.

A very practical reason is that even though it seems apparent that the file bares no originality, and is therefore not copyrightable, a very risk-averse entity might avoid using it because the copyright situation is not clear. Or that such an entity might have in their inbound licensing policy that they do not accept “public domain”. In that case reaching out to the original author and being able to ask to clarify the situation, or whether they can receive those files under e.g. CC0-1.0 or MIT, would be super helpful.

Which is why the REUSE spec does ask for the “copyright holder” to be listed even if the file is obviously not copyrightable, if at all possible.

[mxmehl]

Thanks @silverhook! Would it make sense to add a sentence or two to the section in the FAQ? https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-docs/blob/master/faq.md#what-to-do-with-uncopyrightable-files-uncopyrightable

[matkoniecz]

The problem is that in this cases I am not aware who was the original author. I can invent one/guess/put myself but I am not sure how it improves licensing documentation.

Note that this issue is specifically not about "I created file and think it is not copyrightable", it is about "I am adding REUSE metadata and encountered file with unknown author but it is not copyrightable"

And sometimes work is actually clearly not copyrightable - blue rectangle or file containing solely "mock-maker-inline"

[silverhook]

@matkoniecz I understand your predicament. And as best practices like REUSE slowly catch on, such issues will pop up. If a repo starts afresh.

In the case you describe and you can’t figure out the author through e.g. Git history, I’d suggest putting something like “Unknown author <url_to_project>” as the copyright holder and as license either:
a) marking it with with a public-domain dedication (e.g. CC0-1.0); or
b) creating a separate license file e.g. LICENSES/LicenseRef-unknown_author_but_not_copyrightable.txt and put a simple explanation of the situation in that file

@mxmehl I think that’d be a great idea, yes.