On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 13:32, Ben Laurie wrote:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:nd 2004/01/01 05:26:26 Log: update license to 2004.
Why? Unless the file changes in 2004, the copyright doesn't. And, in any
case, the earliest date applies, so it gets us nowhere.
We seem to have this discussion every year. I'm too lazy to extensively
dig in the archives, but:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg? [EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=79209
Roy: "That would change a lot more, and a lot less, than we want. I've committed the change for 2.0 and will do 1.3 next."
Roy, care to explain what it is we want (and more importantly why)? I promise to mold the answer into a developer FAQ.
IANAL (nor am I Roy, of course) but after reading http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html (especially #noc and #hlc) it appears to me that basically the correct way is what Ben suggested (only bump year when file changes):
"The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all the following three elements:
...
2. The year of first publication of the work. In the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient.
..."
On the other hand I don't see any harm in doing the bump in all files in one go since one can argue that in the end it's a combined work of all the files and we're just stating this in every, single file. So, when one file changes, the combined work changes and we've to change every file to reflect this fact. Does this make sense?
just my 2c...
Cheers, Erik
