On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 02:16:52PM +0100, Eelco Chaudron wrote: > > > On 28 Feb 2024, at 14:07, Ilya Maximets wrote: > > > On 2/28/24 10:35, Eelco Chaudron wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 28 Feb 2024, at 10:15, Simon Horman wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 08:40:40AM +0100, Eelco Chaudron wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 27 Feb 2024, at 16:36, Simon Horman wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> IANAL, but I think we can extend the copyright attached > >>>>> to documentation to cover the current year: we are still > >>>>> actively working on the documentation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <ho...@ovn.org> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> Documentation/conf.py | 2 +- > >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/conf.py b/Documentation/conf.py > >>>>> index 085ca2cd67c7..15785605ad86 100644 > >>>>> --- a/Documentation/conf.py > >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/conf.py > >>>>> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ master_doc = 'contents' > >>>>> > >>>>> # General information about the project. > >>>>> project = u'Open vSwitch' > >>>>> -copyright = u'2016-2021, The Open vSwitch Development Community' > >>>>> +copyright = u'2016-2024, The Open vSwitch Development Community' > >>>>> author = u'The Open vSwitch Development Community' > >>>>> > >>>>> # The version info for the project you're documenting, acts as > >>>>> replacement for > >>>> > >>>> I do not think we need to update the copyright notices, the only > >>>> important part, if I understand correctly, is the initial date. So maybe > >>>> we can just remove the -2024, and we never have to update this? Maybe > >>>> after 50/70 years? > >>> > >>> Interesting. That could well be the case, but I don't know. > >> > >> There is a lot of online info on this, for example > >> https://nexb.com/do-you-really-need-to-update-the-copyright-each-new-year/. > >> But maybe you can ask the legal team. > > > > This one copyright notice is a little different from the ones > > in the files with a code, because it goes on a website and dates > > of website publication are a little harder to track. > > > > Also, I don't think it's good to only list the first publication > > date. Simply because websites with old copyright dates can be > > perceived as unmaintained or abandoned. > > I’m fine with either way, however, I feel like changing dates in code, which > happens quite often, does not make sense. Especially when changing the date, > rather than adding a year. > > Anyhow, Acked-by: Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com>
Thanks, I think we have consensus around applying this, even if it isn't clean-cut. I will plan to do so. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
