If you talk about obvious things, then a four-digit year is an obvious one... A two-digit one is stupid (maybe Jesus left some hack?)...
On 1/30/06, Nick Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > AndrC)s Delfino wrote: > > Maybe it may help someone, :P > > > > --- license.template Tue Jun 3 19:37:00 2003 > > +++ license.template.1 Sun Jan 29 10:00:22 2006 > > @@ -5,11 +5,14 @@ > > should be separated by a comma, e.g. > > Copyright (c) 2003, 2004 > > > > +Note that less than and greater than signs below MUST be removed; > > +they are there for you to enter your own information. > > + > > If you add extra text to the body of the license, be careful not to > > add further restrictions. > > > > /* > > - * Copyright (c) CCYY YOUR NAME HERE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > + * Copyright (c) <YEAR> <YOUR NAME HERE> <YOUR E-MAIL HERE> > > * > > * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this softwae for any > > * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above > > What problem are you trying to fix? > > I really don't think this adds much... You lost the implied suggestion > that "year" be a four digit number, and you stated what is pretty darned > obvious to an almost insulting degree. I would really hope that anyone > seriously planning on contributing new code would understand what was > there currently, or would at least understand the idea of looking to see > how others did it if they had uncertainty (that IS the purpose of the > BSD license, of course!). > > What is there now isn't exactly the way I would have done it, but > neither is your change, and I suspect very few other developers would > agree with me or with each other. > > Nick.
