Hi Bernd, Bernd Warken wrote on Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 05:03:50PM +0000:
> commit fe9c3ec1ad398f07d89da432b9a5c8e777b517df > Author: Bernd Warken <groff-bernd.warken...@web.de> > Date: Tue Sep 2 19:03:15 2014 +0200 > > In groff source top directory add Emacs settings for most text files. > --- > BUG-REPORT | 6 ++++++ > ChangeLog | 5 +++++ > FDL | 10 ++++++++-- > INSTALL | 10 ++++++++-- > INSTALL.REPO | 10 ++++++++-- > INSTALL.gen | 10 ++++++++-- > MANIFEST | 11 +++++++++-- > MORE.STUFF | 7 +++++++ > NEWS | 3 ++- > PROBLEMS | 9 ++++++++- > PROJECTS | 7 +++++++ > README | 11 +++++++++-- > README.MinGW | 9 ++++++++- > 13 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) Almost all of this commit seems wrong, please revert. The following files are not UTF-8, bus US-ASCII encoded: BUG-REPORT FDL INSTALL INSTALL.REPO INSTALL.gen MANIFEST MORE.STUFF PROBLEMS PROJECTS README README.MinGW In addition to that, it is widely considered bad style to add annotations suitable only for one particular editor to end-user visible files. Besides, in a new work, copyright is only applicable if the work exceeds a threshold of originality[1]. In a derived work, copyright is only applicable to the changes and additions if these changes and additions exceed a threshold of originality. Addition of boilerplate text like > +##### Emacs settings > +Local Variables: > +mode: text > +coding: utf-8 > +End: appears to me as a textbook example of an addition that is *not* copyrightable, no matter whether you use the "originality" or the "sweat of the brow" doctrine. Consequently, bumping the list of copyright years in such a case is a misrepresentation of the legal situation - unless you bumped based on some *other*, indeed copyrightable change, but a quick "git log -- FDL" gives me the impression that is not the case. Yours, Ingo [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality