On 4/21/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You are correct. Only the years in which the file was actually changed > should be listed in the copyright.
If we want to get pedantic, it should only be year of first publication. ;-) For reference, here's Larry Rosen's post to legal-discuss@ on the form of copyright notice: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200503.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (There are some other things in that post that are policy issues instead of legal issues - which is where we tend to get diverging opinions; but Larry's description of the form of notice is accurate.) HTH. -- justin