OK, thanks for the clarification. Gary
On Thu, Oct 3, 2024, 8:56 AM Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Gary, > > I don't think there is any legal reason for the date to be part of the > NOTICE file. Actually, by the Berne convention[1] any original work get > protected as soon as it get published. In other word, the protection > starts at the date of publishing, until the protection ends. It's > automatic, so no date should be mandatory. > > This discussion has already occured on legal@a.o, and here is what was > said [2]: > > "Phil Steitz <ps...@apache.org> wrote on 03/05/2005 06:59:14 PM: > > > > I don't pretend to understand any of this; but this sounds like > it could > > save us volunteers a little time, so let me ask the following > question: > > > > Suppose we have a source file that was created @apache as part of an > > ongoing project. When first added to the source repo, it > included our > > standard copyright notice in its header file. That notice > referenced the > > year that it was added, say 2004. Now 2005 rolls around and I > make and > > commit a change to the file. Do I need to change > > > > * Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation. > > > > to > > > > * Copyright 2004-2005 The Apache Software Foundation. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Phil > > Do you need to? Not really. The purpose of the year in the copyright > notice is to indicate when the copyright term started so that people can > calculate when the work moves into the public domain. In your hypo, the > file was created in 2004, so that's when the copyright on the file begins. > Using a span of dates (eg., 2004-2005) is mostly used for collective > works where individual pieces might be 2004 and others might be 2005. For > simplicity, I'd suggest keeping the initial date unless you've performed > some sort of major revision. > > Jeff > > > Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160 > (notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jt...@us.ibm.com (home) j...@beff.net" > > An also interesting read: [3] > > > That being said, if you -1 the vote, I will update the NOTICE - > something I *will* do anyway in the current git repo - and cut a new > release, with some more changes (I'd like to get some javadoc fixed), so > your call, it's not a big deal. > > Thanks! > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention#Content > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/gsvh75mctxgxf4xbxzzsrtw8kqvnrkhr > [3] https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2023/01/08/copyright-without-years/ > > On 03/10/2024 12:46, Gary D. Gregory wrote: > > This might be a blocker for legal reasons: The NOTICE.txt file in the > root of the src zip files has _not_ been updated for 2024. There is > _another_ NOTICE files in the zip under src\NOTICE-bin.txt and it has not > been updated for 2024 either. This is the case for both src zips for 2.1.9 > and 2.0.26. > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > On 2024/09/30 17:21:16 Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > >> hi! > >> > >> WARNING: there are 2 votes to cast! > >> > >> > >> This is a vote for a double release: > >> * MINA 2.1.9 > >> * MINA 2.0.26 > >> > >> Those versions are a maintenance realase, fixing a bug in the way we > >> treat Strings when reading a IoBuffer: > >> > >> DIRMINA-1181:Exception thrown when attempting to decode certain UTF-16 > chars > >> > >> > >> > >> Temporary tags have been created (they can be removed if the vote is not > >> approved) : > >> > >> * MINA 2.1.9: > >> > https://github.com/apache/mina/commit/8df31da1597056b73f5d6dbf11c75ce13227ba60 > >> > >> * MINA 2.0.26: > >> > https://github.com/apache/mina/commit/4d1cf35024ae565827b63c11bd0b42a62a1c3e49 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The final artifacts are stored in a staging repository: > >> * MINA 2.1.9: > >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemina-1105 > >> * MINA 2.0.26: > >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemina-1104 > >> > >> > >> > >> The distributions are available for download on : > >> * MINA 2.1.9: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/mina/mina/2.1.9 > >> * MINA 2.0.26: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/mina/mina/2.0.26 > >> > >> > >> Let us vote : > >> [ ] +1 | Release MINA 2.1.9 > >> [ ] ± | Abstain > >> [ ] -1 | Do *NOT* release MINA 2.1.9 > >> > >> > >> [ ] +1 | Release MINA 2.0.26 > >> [ ] ± | Abstain > >> [ ] -1 | Do *NOT* release MINA 2.0.26 > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Regards, > >> Cordialement, > >> Emmanuel Lécharny > >> www.iktek.com > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mina.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@mina.apache.org > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mina.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@mina.apache.org > > > > -- > *Emmanuel Lécharny* P. +33 (0)6 08 33 32 61 > elecha...@apache.org >
