Companies use headers like

// Copyright 2011 The Go Authors.

But countless projects with a single maintainer have

// Copyright 2011 John Smith

even though they have hundreds of contributors, all of whom own their contributions.

Is this ok to only include the owner in the header?

  • 2
    Not a project that require a CLA / other form of copyright assignment? – Gert van den Berg Apr 8 at 14:33
  • 1
    If you're the author of this project, I would highly discourage adding such headers. Modern version control system have much better ways to attribute authorship than copyright header. If you found this in an existing project though, I would highly recommend against removing it without the consent of the listed party. In any case, such notices are not legally necessary to own copyright of the project/file. – Lie Ryan Apr 9 at 8:17
  • It can be legal if you strictly define for which part of software is this copyright notice. For example - specific file or subsystem/library. – i486 Apr 9 at 9:31
  • 1
    @LieRyan : Note that especially within fields where people are not all software engineers, it's not that unusual for people to download stuff from open source websites, then keep and modify files in a non-VCS environment, keeping a header with a source in every file might be a good practice not to let these people forget where it came from. – Mefitico Apr 9 at 11:35

As far as I am aware, all FLOSS licenses that deal with copyright notices only require the preservation of notices that exist. Each author had the opportunity to add their own name to header when they made their contribution. If they chose not to do so, there is no existing notice from that author to preserve. There is never (as far as I know) any requirement to proactively add a notice that an author chose not to include.

Not having a copyright notice for some copyright holder is not inherently legally problematic, either, since copyright notices have virtually no legal function. An overwhelming majority of nations have ratified the Berne Convention, which requires that copyright rights are automatically granted at the time of a work's creation, irrespective of any copyright notice on the work.

If someone removes existing copyright notices by another author (whose copyrighted material is still contained in the work), then that's obviously not allowed by the license.

  • Why is removing a copyright notice "typically illegal in general"? For example if a work is in the public domain, or its copyright has expired, I don't see how removing the copyright notice would be "illegal in general" in that case. – Brandin Apr 8 at 5:49
  • @Brandin You're right that "in general" was too broad. My intent was "illegal independent of whether the license explicitly disallows it or not" and I have edited to clarify. – apsillers Apr 8 at 10:15
  • 3
    @Brandin you do have a point, but consider moral rights: the right to be recognized as the author. Copyright notices are one way to do that recognition. Of course the duration of moral rights is extremely jurisdiction-dependent. In some places authorship needs to be asserted in order for these rights to apply. In others, moral rights never expire, even if the economic rights on the work have entered the public domain. – amon Apr 8 at 12:34
  • I think the question here is regarding, or may involve, a component of honesty: in particular, by putting such a notice at the beginning of a file when it was not (majorly?) written by the person indicated, even if it may be required by a license (e.g. that requires reproduction of notices), is that a lie, and if so, how does that jive with the requirements from said license? – The_Sympathizer Apr 8 at 15:51
  • @amon I always interpreted the "right to be recognized as author" to mean that you can state "I wrote/draw/created X". Not that any depiction in any form of X should state explicitly that you are the author. – Bakuriu Apr 8 at 21:26

Legal? Who knows? If you work for a place that has an open-source compliance lawyer, ask them.

Still: open source licenses often suggest what to do with existing copyright notices. For example, the MIT license says, emphasis mine.

Copyright year copyright holder



It's clear, under this license, that the copyright notice on the FOSS you used should be included unchanged on the copies you distribute. If you did a substantial amount of work you could add another copyright line.

Other licenses offer similar requirements.

  • 1
    Your statement contradicts the license. The license specifically says that you may make whatever modifications you want with the one exception that you may not modify the license file. So it would permit you to modify one-line copyright notices with author identification inside other files as you wish. – David Schwartz Apr 9 at 3:06

Regardless of whether it's legal (it should be, but ask a lawyer), as a maintainer I find it inappropriate. For software that has a single primary author and many contributors of small patches, an appropriate copyright notice looks like:

Copyright ©2019 [author's name], et. al.

for et alia, literally "and others".

For a work with multiple major authors (and it's not clear to me the point at which this should change), but with no formal organization holding copyright, a more appropriate version might be:

Copyright ©2019 the authors of [project name]

However, you might want to run this by a lawyer, since it's not entirely traditional/conventional.

If you do end up with a formal organization that will hold copyright to most of the work, but don't want to impose FSF-style copyright assignment, an appropriate notice would be:

Copyright ©2019 [The Organization], et. al.

Your Answer

