Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/21/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I really have no problem if Cliff posts to the list telling us "It is
not necessary to update copyright dates" - and if he does that, we will
revert before rolling 2.2.0.
Feel free to read the whole thread. It has Cliff and Roy giving the
same answer: "Don't update copyright years." -- justin
That is not what Cliff says
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200601.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
"you should only update the year when some
substantial addition is made to the work. For instance, adding or
rewriting a method/function would sound to me like new copyrightable
expression; but, changing the value of a constant or renaming
something would not likely be protected under copyright law."
Does httpd 1.3.x justify a collected-works bump to 2006? I doubt it (a few
few-line patches). Does httpd 2.0.x justify one? More likely, but still
debatable. Does 2.2.x? I'd think so (major code fixes in proxy handling
etc.) Does trunk? Certainly, some major rewrites in that code.
You are right that we don't update *all* the copyrights, nobody debated that.
We had a simple (too simple) search of touched files to refresh copyright, and
I have no issue if we should undo that and selectively update copyrights on the
significantly changed elements of the work.
Consider new doc pages, where even a new paragraph is substantial enough, but
touching the formatting/xml tags is irrelevant.
We are so far from 'solving' this it's absurd. But please don't claim that
Cliff stated copyrights are never updated. Only that they should be selectively
updated based on real changes to content, e.g. not spelling corrections in docs,
nor trivial bug fixes in code.
