On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 05:09 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > Hey, Simon is on the PMC, so he should know. Just joking. Back to > business: There is a recent thread on legal-discuss that should shed > some light into this: > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200601.mbo >x/browser > > Looks like I was taking this a little too strict earlier. And it > turns out that the copyright year thing will likely soon be a thing > of the past anyway. HTH >
Not really as it still doesn't give us a direction what to do now. However, after reading the thread you pointed to and some related stuff it seems to me that ATM Copyright refers to something like: The year of publication for that particular copyrightable work, where "copyrightable" means the changes are significant enough to justify a separate copyright from the original. This means for trivial changes (which is a subjective thing of course) we shouldn't update the year, for others we should but need to leave gaps for years without copyrightable additions to the work. So the svn submit in question which triggered this thread is should have been either: Copyright 1999-2004, 2006 The Apache Software Foundation. or: no change to the copyright header if the change was trivial. Agreed ??? <snip/> > Jeremias Maerki Manuel
