Re: bad copyright years
The files who have copyright year before 1997 were released every year as part of Mule package. They are integrated into Emacs in 1997. And Emacs were released in 1997, 1998, and 1999. So, perhaps I didn't have to add the year 2000, but I thought that having that year was not harmful. And actually most files are modified in 2000 too. It is ok. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
They are written by me and not modified by any other person. So, I think it's ok not having FSF copyright. That is right. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
Kenichi Handa wrote: I've just updated all AIST copyright years. It seems as if in every case, you just added every year from the first copyright date to the present. This is not exactly how it is supposed to work. The idea is, you should add every year where the file was released with a non-trivial amount of changes in either the file itself or the package (ie Emacs in this case). Since 2001, Emacs has been publicly available by anon CVS. This counts as a release every year. So any file that was in Emacs 21 (in 2001) should have the years 2001-2006 inclusive added. Files added to CVS since Emacs 21 should have the years N-2006 added, where N is the year of addition. Before 2001, you just need to add the dates of the Emacs releases (assuming the files were in Emacs at the time). I suspect that few files have actually had this done in a rigorous fashion. So if I were you, I probably would just have added the years 2001-2006. (disclaimer: this is my understanding). They are written by me and not modified by any other person. So, I think it's ok not having FSF copyright. OK (I just found it odd to see files in Emacs which the FSF has no claim on). ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Glenn Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kenichi Handa wrote: I've just updated all AIST copyright years. It seems as if in every case, you just added every year from the first copyright date to the present. This is not exactly how it is supposed to work. The idea is, you should add every year where the file was released with a non-trivial amount of changes in either the file itself or the package (ie Emacs in this case). Since 2001, Emacs has been publicly available by anon CVS. This counts as a release every year. So any file that was in Emacs 21 (in 2001) should have the years 2001-2006 inclusive added. Files added to CVS since Emacs 21 should have the years N-2006 added, where N is the year of addition. Before 2001, you just need to add the dates of the Emacs releases (assuming the files were in Emacs at the time). I suspect that few files have actually had this done in a rigorous fashion. So if I were you, I probably would just have added the years 2001-2006. The files who have copyright year before 1997 were released every year as part of Mule package. They are integrated into Emacs in 1997. And Emacs were released in 1997, 1998, and 1999. So, perhaps I didn't have to add the year 2000, but I thought that having that year was not harmful. And actually most files are modified in 2000 too. --- Kenichi Handa [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
Kenichi Handa wrote: The files who have copyright year before 1997 were released every year as part of Mule package. Ok. Sorry for the lecture you did not need, then. They are integrated into Emacs in 1997. And Emacs were released in 1997, 1998, and 1999. So, perhaps I didn't have to add the year 2000, but I thought that having that year was not harmful. And actually most files are modified in 2000 too. I _think_ it does not matter if the files were modified that year, if those modifications were not released that year (though I agree with you that this is not a huge issue). The current maintain.texi does not seem to make it clear what rules apply if you are not using a public repository, as in 2000. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Glenn Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kenichi Handa wrote: years that I modified the code. But, AIST keeps copyright for all continuous years. If we must list all years explicitely in such a case, could you please update the lines for AIST too? I've done my best, but I would ask you to check the files where AIST holds copyright to make sure that they are correct. In several cases, the AIST copyright had not been updated for many years (before Emacs 21), whereas the FSF one had. I therefore only updated the FSF years. You may want to update AIST years too. In particular, in lisp/language: Thank you very much. I've just updated all AIST copyright years. I would also draw attention to the following files, which have no FSF copyright at all, it seems. Maybe this is correct, I don't know: lisp/composite.el lisp/international/ja-dic-cnv.el lisp/international/ja-dic-utl.el lisp/language/greek.el lisp/language/misc-lang.el lisp/language/thai-word.el They are written by me and not modified by any other person. So, I think it's ok not having FSF copyright. --- Kenichi Handa [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
Nick Roberts wrote: PS Fun times ahead in 3 weeks when every single file in Emacs needs 2007 adding to the Copyright years... Doesn't this make it a bit silly then to just to do it for 2006? I'm not just doing it for 2006. I'm clearing up the mess (IMO) that remains several months after the copyright statements in general were supposedly all checked. Adding 2007 when the time comes ought to be almost totally automatic, as you say. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
From: Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:26:07 -0500 There's not a single change that has been done in config.bat in the years 2003 and 2005. maintain.texi says (in node Copyright Notices): To update the list of year numbers, add each year in which you have made nontrivial changes to the package. The package is GNU Emacs. There have been changes in GNU Emacs every year. We used to have a different practice, which you probably remember. We changed it this year based on Eben Moglen's advice. That change of policy doesn't make sense to me. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
From: Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 01:00:52 -0500 Btw, why isn't this change reflected in ChangeLog? To be honest, because the prospect of potentially writing ChangeLog entries for 4000 files appalled me. These changes are all changes in comments (essentially), which have no impact on how the code performs. In general we don't make change log entries for changes in comments. Changing the copyright notice is not just any change in a comment. If writing 4000 entries is too much (I don't understand why, a simple script or even an Emacs macro could do that), then I suggest that at least some general entry should be made about these mass changes. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
We used to have a different practice, which you probably remember. We changed it this year based on Eben Moglen's advice. That change of policy doesn't make sense to me. He's the lawyer, so we follow his advice. The new policy is much simpler to implement. Every year, when we've made more than a tiny change, we add the new year to every file. Nothing else to do, except when we add a file. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
In general we don't make change log entries for changes in comments. Changing the copyright notice is not just any change in a comment. For software maintenance purposes, just as for copyright recording purposes, this is almost as trivial as a whitespace change. There is no reason to record this change in ChangeLog. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
Kenichi Handa wrote: years that I modified the code. But, AIST keeps copyright for all continuous years. If we must list all years explicitely in such a case, could you please update the lines for AIST too? I've done my best, but I would ask you to check the files where AIST holds copyright to make sure that they are correct. In several cases, the AIST copyright had not been updated for many years (before Emacs 21), whereas the FSF one had. I therefore only updated the FSF years. You may want to update AIST years too. In particular, in lisp/language: chinese.el devan-util.el english.el hebrew.el japanese.el korea-util korean lao-util tibet-util tibetan viet-util vietnamese I would also draw attention to the following files, which have no FSF copyright at all, it seems. Maybe this is correct, I don't know: lisp/composite.el lisp/international/ja-dic-cnv.el lisp/international/ja-dic-utl.el lisp/language/greek.el lisp/language/misc-lang.el lisp/language/thai-word.el I am becoming increasingly unhappy with the state of the Emacs copyright headers, despite a big exercise earlier in the year where every subdirectory was supposedly signed off as up to date. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
I don't understand this change: Index: config.bat === RCS file: /cvsroot/emacs/emacs/config.bat,v retrieving revision 1.42 retrieving revision 1.43 diff -u -r1.42 -r1.43 --- config.bat 20 Apr 2006 06:59:37 - 1.42 +++ config.bat 5 Dec 2006 05:36:19 - 1.43 @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ @echo off rem -- rem Configuration script for MSDOS -rem Copyright (C) 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2004, 2006 -rem Free Software Foundation, Inc. +rem Copyright (C) 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003 +rem 2004, 2005, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. rem This file is part of GNU Emacs. There's not a single change that has been done in config.bat in the years 2003 and 2005. maintain.texi says (in node Copyright Notices): To update the list of year numbers, add each year in which you have made nontrivial changes to the package. So why add to config.bat years that didn't see any changes in that file? Btw, why isn't this change reflected in ChangeLog? ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
Eli Zaretskii wrote: There's not a single change that has been done in config.bat in the years 2003 and 2005. maintain.texi says (in node Copyright Notices): To update the list of year numbers, add each year in which you have made nontrivial changes to the package. Changes to the _package_, not to the _file_. So why add to config.bat years that didn't see any changes in that file? Because the Emacs package saw change in those years. Btw, why isn't this change reflected in ChangeLog? To be honest, because the prospect of potentially writing ChangeLog entries for 4000 files appalled me. These changes are all changes in comments (essentially), which have no impact on how the code performs. PS Fun times ahead in 3 weeks when every single file in Emacs needs 2007 adding to the Copyright years... ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
There's not a single change that has been done in config.bat in the years 2003 and 2005. maintain.texi says (in node Copyright Notices): To update the list of year numbers, add each year in which you have made nontrivial changes to the package. The package is GNU Emacs. There have been changes in GNU Emacs every year. We used to have a different practice, which you probably remember. We changed it this year based on Eben Moglen's advice. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
t-mouse.el was added in 2006 so it is correct. It can't be correct. See my thread in emacs-devel. If Rubini and Zimmermann have signed assignments, their names should not appear as copyright holders. If they haven't, the file should not be in Emacs, AFAIU. And I thought we said that CC mode was added to Emacs in 1992, yet e.g ;;; cc-langs.el --- language specific settings for CC Mode ;; Copyright (C) 1985, 1987, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, ;; 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Free Software ;; Foundation, Inc. i.e the years before 1992 are still in the header Q. to RMS: What *should* the header for t-mouse.el look like? Currently: ;; Copyright (C) 1994,1995 Alessandro Rubini [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;; parts are by Ian T Zimmermann [EMAIL PROTECTED], 1995,1998 ;; Copyright (C) 2006 ;; Free Software Foundation, Inc. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
Nick Roberts wrote: And I thought we said that CC mode was added to Emacs in 1992, yet e.g ;;; cc-langs.el --- language specific settings for CC Mode ;; Copyright (C) 1985, 1987, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, ;; 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Free Software ;; Foundation, Inc. i.e the years before 1992 are still in the header Yes, this is fine. Presumably cc-mode was released as a separate package several times before it was added to Emacs. So in 1992 the header may have looked like: 1985, 1987, 1992 John Smith Then when the copyright got assigned to the FSF in 1992, this changes to become: 1985, 1987, 1992 FSF The older years do not get removed, you just change the copyright holder. Q. to RMS: What *should* the header for t-mouse.el look like? Currently: ;; Copyright (C) 1994,1995 Alessandro Rubini [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;; parts are by Ian T Zimmermann [EMAIL PROTECTED], 1995,1998 ;; Copyright (C) 2006 ;; Free Software Foundation, Inc. If I may answer, then normally you remove the old names and replace them with FSF, but keep the old dates. So it would look like: 1994, 1995, 1998, 2006 FSF I suppose there are corner cases when things may be different. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
ps-bdf.el should have all the from 2001 to 2006. Do I update the years for AIST as well as FSF? I think only those for FSF, but please ask Handa-san. t-mouse.el was added in 2006 so it is correct. It can't be correct. See my thread in emacs-devel. I meant that the years were correct. I tend to focus too narrowly these days, so I didn't even notice the issue about Rubini until someone pointed it out. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ps-bdf.el should have all the from 2001 to 2006. Do I update the years for AIST as well as FSF? I think only those for FSF, but please ask Handa-san. Long ago, I updated AIST's copyright line to list only such years that I modified the code. But, AIST keeps copyright for all continuous years. If we must list all years explicitely in such a case, could you please update the lines for AIST too? --- Kenichi Handa [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
ps-bdf.el should have all the from 2001 to 2006. t-mouse.el was added in 2006 so it is correct. I asked about composite.el. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
Thanks for checking on the ones I was unsure of. Richard Stallman wrote: ps-bdf.el should have all the from 2001 to 2006. Do I update the years for AIST as well as FSF? t-mouse.el was added in 2006 so it is correct. It can't be correct. See my thread in emacs-devel. If Rubini and Zimmermann have signed assignments, their names should not appear as copyright holders. If they haven't, the file should not be in Emacs, AFAIU. I asked about composite.el. I have since checked lisp/ subdirs: calc, calendar, emacs-lisp, emulation and erc. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
On this subject, was it ever decided whether 2001 (the year 21.1 was released) should be added to all files that were present in Emacs at that time? When we went through this copyright update process the first time, sometimes it was added and sometimes it was not. Or is it not important? ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
Don't the copyright years need to be updated to include all years from 2001-2006 inclusive, the period over which they have been available from the Emacs CVS repository? Yes, they should be. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
On this subject, was it ever decided whether 2001 (the year 21.1 was released) should be added to all files that were present in Emacs at that time? Yes, it should be. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
Richard Stallman wrote: On this subject, was it ever decided whether 2001 (the year 21.1 was released) should be added to all files that were present in Emacs at that time? Yes, it should be. Marvellous. It is missing from a large number of files. I just fixed lisp/*.el, which was enormous fun. If people want to jump in and do some others, that would be good. The only thing stopping it being automatic is files that were added to Emacs since 2001. Comparing with an Emacs-21.x tree can help spot these. I omitted these, which have odd copyrights: composite.el ps-bdf.el t-mouse.el ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
OK, I didn't appreciate that. Now I fail to see why the original question was `interesting' at all, or why you wished to know when CC mode became part of Emacs, as it seems to have a striaghtforward answer. It has to do with which years it was released in. For the time it was distributed in Emacs, we know the answer--it is the same as the rest of Emacs. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
I also see there that the Copyright years 1992-1998 were all listed explicitly at one point, then in 1999 got changed to the compact form. So it seems pretty clear they should be put back. Yes, please do. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
A few other files have odd Copyright notices, eg leim/MISC-DIC/CTLau.html leim/quail/CTLau.el lisp/international/titdic-cnv.el lisp/language/thai-word.el Eg who owns the copyright for thai-word.el in 2006? Who has owned titdic-cnv.el since 2002? Handa, can you answer? ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
I think this means don't delete years, not don't reformat the way years appear. I guess it also means list the copyright owners at the time. No, definitely not. If someone has assigned copyright to the FSF, then the copyright notices for his work should say Free Software Foundation, Inc. It gets released separately though, and works with XEmacs from what I understand That does not affect this issue at all. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
I think this means don't delete years, not don't reformat the way years appear. I guess it also means list the copyright owners at the time. No, definitely not. If someone has assigned copyright to the FSF, then the copyright notices for his work should say Free Software Foundation, Inc. OK, I didn't appreciate that. Now I fail to see why the original question was `interesting' at all, or why you wished to know when CC mode became part of Emacs, as it seems to have a striaghtforward answer. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A few other files have odd Copyright notices, eg leim/MISC-DIC/CTLau.html This is a verbatim copy of the original file. leim/quail/CTLau.el This file is automatically generated from leim/MISC-DIC/CTLau.html. lisp/international/titdic-cnv.el lisp/language/thai-word.el Eg who owns the copyright for thai-word.el in 2006? AIST, as well as the other files that I wrote and no one else have modified. Who has owned titdic-cnv.el since 2002? FSF and AIST, as well as the other files that I wrote and have been modified by someone else who assigned his changes to FSF. --- Kenichi Handa [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
Should things of the form 1992-2003 be expanded to every member year? That is an interesting question. I don't think CC mode was part of Emacs during all those years. When did it become part of Emacs? And what copyright years did it have then? ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
Should things of the form 1992-2003 be expanded to every member year? That is an interesting question. I don't think CC mode was part of Emacs during all those years. When did it become part of Emacs? And what copyright years did it have then? I updated copyright years in the progmodes directory (for 2005 and 2006). I might have overlooked 1992-2003 but I think I was following guidance at the time - I can't remember. Discussion on emacs-devel in 2005 about copyright years might shed some light. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
Nick Roberts wrote:
I updated copyright years in the progmodes directory (for 2005 and
2006). I might have overlooked 1992-2003 but I think I was
following guidance at the time - I can't remember. Discussion on
emacs-devel in 2005 about copyright years might shed some light.
Snippet from message from rms to emacs-devel:
Subject: Simpler rules for copyright notices
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:58:24 -0500
[...]
Do not abbreviate the year list using a range; for instance, do not
write @samp{1996--1998}; instead, write @samp{1996, 1997, 1998}.
___
emacs-pretest-bug mailing list
emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
I updated copyright years in the progmodes directory (for 2005 and
2006). I might have overlooked 1992-2003 but I think I was
following guidance at the time - I can't remember. Discussion on
emacs-devel in 2005 about copyright years might shed some light.
Snippet from message from rms to emacs-devel:
Subject: Simpler rules for copyright notices
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:58:24 -0500
[...]
Do not abbreviate the year list using a range; for instance, do not
write @samp{1996--1998}; instead, write @samp{1996, 1997, 1998}.
I didn't abbreviate the year list, it was already abbreviated. IANAL but
how about the paragraph before that one:
If you copy a file into the package from some other program, keep the
copyright years that come with the file.
All the files you mention, apart from vhdl-mode.el, are from CC mode.
--
Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob
___
emacs-pretest-bug mailing list
emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
Richard Stallman wrote: Should things of the form 1992-2003 be expanded to every member year? That is an interesting question. I don't think CC mode was part of Emacs during all those years. When did it become part of Emacs? And what copyright years did it have then? The CVS repository for cc-mode.el (from the cc-mode website) shows that the statements This file is part of GNU Emacs and Copyright FSF were added in 1992. http://cc-mode.cvs.sourceforge.net/cc-mode/cc-mode/cc-mode.el?r1=2.193r2=2.194 http://cc-mode.cvs.sourceforge.net/cc-mode/cc-mode/cc-mode.el?r1=2.192r2=2.193 I also see there that the Copyright years 1992-1998 were all listed explicitly at one point, then in 1999 got changed to the compact form. So it seems pretty clear they should be put back. A few other files have odd Copyright notices, eg leim/MISC-DIC/CTLau.html leim/quail/CTLau.el lisp/international/titdic-cnv.el lisp/language/thai-word.el Eg who owns the copyright for thai-word.el in 2006? Who has owned titdic-cnv.el since 2002? ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: bad copyright years
Glenn Morris writes: IANAL but how about the paragraph before that one: If you copy a file into the package from some other program, keep the copyright years that come with the file. I think this means don't delete years, not don't reformat the way years appear. I guess it also means list the copyright owners at the time. All the files you mention, apart from vhdl-mode.el, are from CC mode. Which has been part of Emacs since 1992, it seems. It gets released separately though, and works with XEmacs from what I understand e.g 2006-02-24 Alan Mackenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] * CC Mode Update to 5.31.3. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
bad copyright years
These files still have bad Copyright years: Makefile.in lisp/progmodes: cc-align.el cc-awk.el cc-cmds.el cc-compat.el cc-defs.el cc-engine.el cc-langs.el cc-menus.el cc-mode.el cc-styles.el cc-vars.el vhdl-mode.el Should things of the form 1992-2003 be expanded to every member year? ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
