Hi,

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf says

The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.

I wouldn't worry too much about it :)

Huge caveat: IANAIPL and this advice is worth no more than the sum total of what you have paid me for it - ie. nothing.

Is the copyright more associated with the module(s), or with the distribution?

My understanding has always been that copyright refers to anything written. Since modules within a dist might be broken apart later the copyright should be associated with each module - even more correctly with each file. If you have a separate LICEN[SC]E file in your dist you may find for example that it has an embedded copyright notice which far predates anything else in the dist. I have my templates set up so that each script or module which I create includes a separate copyright notice in the source.

Your other questions cannot really be answered by me with any authority. If this concerns you greatly the best thing to do would be to seek the advice of a qualified legal expert in the field (and then report back here, of course). Alternatively, the OSI or EPO or EFF (or other TLA) may have guidance documentation?

This is highly jurisdiction dependent so for anyone to give you an answer we would need to know where you are.

I'm going to assume the US for no other reason than that's where I'm sitting right now. If that's the case you can find some info here:
http://law.stackexchange.com/a/1857/10044

That answer is to a question about website footers but the answer should be informative anyway.

The site I linked to, http://law.stackexchange.com, has a lot of good info relating to software & copyrights. Most of the respondents on the site are lawyers. Of course, anyone on the internet can generally make whatever claim they want regardless of reality. For example, I'm the world's handsomest rocket scientist and also a Highlander... In general most of the answers given will refer to relevant statutes and you can look them up for yourself if you're concerned about anything. Most of the time if somebody gives an incorrect or incomplete answer, somebody else comes along in short order with a correction or more complete answer.

Take a look there and I'll bet that you can find the answer to your question. If not you can always post a question of your own. But copyright questions are pretty common there, so I'm guessing you could find all you need by searching.

Editing to add: My original post might not have been clear - the answer I linked to is US specific, but the site is not. So if you're in a non-US jurisdiction you can still look for answers there and post a question if you'd like. They use tags on questions, so look for a tag corresponding to your jurisdiction when looking at questions. And if you ask one, be sure to add a jurisdiction tag to it as well.

First off: IANAL, so any reader is advised to keep a bucket of salt at their reach.

• Certainly do keep using (c) notices. Just because your work may have protection in their absence, does not mean it is a good idea to drop the notice!^#1 Also, all world is not U.S., despite some who would have you believe so.
• There are several specific forms of copyright, e.g. film subtitles might be covered by some sort of synchronization rights, etc. But in general, only creative expressions are copyrightable. Arranging some elements in a novel and creative way, produces a copyrightable work. Mere idea of such a work, does not. Fixing one typo in a text, does not amount to new creative expression.
• The year number relates to the date of first publication of the work. It is a bad idea to misrepresent the date in either direction. The strength of your copyright claim could depend on its accuracy. E.g. consider a dispute where two parties claim authorship on an expression. An earlier date in such case could mean winning the rights whereas the later publicized work judged a copy. But falsifying the date will undermine your claim. In the other direction, e.g. automatically slapping on a new (c) date 1st January each year, can be seen as an attempt to unduly prolong the status of your work.

So, putting things together. Each significant portion of your distribution has a publication year to it. Keep individual notices in the header of each source content file. List all applicable licenses, (c) notices, years in the distro license text. The purpose of the latter is to inform, and clarity does no harm.

Whether you can use just a range instead of a list, is up to your discretion. In a series of version releases, it is usually pretty simple to show where and when does a particular portion appear.

#1. One good reason to be clear about copyright is to let your users actually make use of your work, i.e. exercise the rights your license grants.

I just found something that makes me think we all need to consult Copyright Lawyers:

Works Reproduced in Machine-Readable Copies
• With or near the title or at the end of the work,
on visually perceptible printouts
• At the user’s terminal at sign-on
• On continuous display on the terminal
• Reproduced durably on a gummed or other label
securely affixed to the copies or to a container
used as a permanent receptacle for the copies

(From https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf)

How does this affect viewing source code in an editor displayed on a computer screen?

Does viewing source code in an editor displayed on a computer screen qualify as a "visually perceptible printout"?

Does a "computer screen" qualify as a "terminal"?

Does opening the source file into the editor qualify as "sign-on"?

Do we need to have the Copyright notice at the beginning of the source files?

IMNAIPL, but, now, my take on the date in a Copyright notice is to do something like:

# First Edition: Copyright 2014, John Perl Coder
# Revised 2017:  Copyright 2017, John Perl Coder
[download]

I have seen very similar notices in books I have read, so may be a reasonable way to cover potential loopholes.

Again, consult a Copyright lawyer