Re: Ping: unreviewed copyright patches

[Richard Sandiford]

Ben Elliston  writes:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 12:12:14PM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
>
>> If you update a chapter, the book copyright date is updated.  Makes more 
>> sense
>> to me.
>
> OK. That's fine with me, then.

Thanks, I installed the patch and added libdecnumber to the list
of default directories to update.

Richard

Re: Ping: unreviewed copyright patches

[Ben Elliston]

On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 12:12:14PM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:

> If you update a chapter, the book copyright date is updated.  Makes more sense
> to me.

OK. That's fine with me, then.

Cheers, Ben

-- 
"These man-made problems have man-made solutions. Unfortunately, the
 men and women needed to solve them are all politicians." -- Peter Hartcher


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Ping: unreviewed copyright patches

[Bruce Korb]

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Ben Elliston  wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 06:59:38PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> These days the guideline encourage updating all files, even ones
>> that haven't changed, so I was hoping we could do that gcc-wide.
>
> If that is what the guidelines say, then I will not object.  I am just
> a bit surprised that you can claim copyright for a year in which the
> file is not modified.

I've wondered about the policy for years, except that I didn't
consider it very important.
The thinking now aligns with what I always thought:  the copyright year is based
on the work as a whole.  Each individual file is not individually
copyrighted, any more
than pages and chapters are individually copyrighted.  Its the whole book.
If you update a chapter, the book copyright date is updated.  Makes more sense
to me.

My issue is likely my issue:  too many names are used for the fixincludes
copyright notices.

Oh, well.  Cheers -Bruce

Re: Ping: unreviewed copyright patches

[Ben Elliston]

On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 06:59:38PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:

> These days the guideline encourage updating all files, even ones
> that haven't changed, so I was hoping we could do that gcc-wide.

If that is what the guidelines say, then I will not object.  I am just
a bit surprised that you can claim copyright for a year in which the
file is not modified.

Cheers, Ben


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Ping: unreviewed copyright patches

[Richard Sandiford]

Ian Lance Taylor  writes:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Richard Sandiford
>  wrote:
>> Not exactly the most exciting patches, and certainly not worth more than
>> one ping, but:
>>
>>   libgcc copyright
>>   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00642.html
>
> This is OK.

Thanks!

> Don't these count as obvious at this point?

Well, I think the idea behind asking me to send per-directory patches
was so that people could check that I was updating the right things.
OKness for one directory wouldn't really carry over to another.

But I'm glad to say this is the last of the patches anyway.

Richard

Re: Ping: unreviewed copyright patches

[Richard Sandiford]

Ben Elliston  writes:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 10:19:47AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>>   libdecnumber copyright
>>   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00647.html
>
> I've refreshed my memory on the use of year ranges in the copyright
> notice (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html).  Looking at the
> ChangeLog, I think it's reasonable to assert copyright for 2005-2011,
> but not 2012 or 2013.

These days the guideline encourage updating all files, even ones that
haven't changed, so I was hoping we could do that gcc-wide.  The idea of
sending per-directory patches was to vet the output of the update script
so that hopefully we can use it again next year with a bit less fuss.
So in a way, an "OK" to this patch would be an OK to add 2014 in 2014,
etc.

It sounds like you'd prefer we didn't do that, which is certainly OK with me.
We can always add libdecnumber to the list in future if things change.

Thanks,
Richard

Re: Ping: unreviewed copyright patches

[Ian Lance Taylor]

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Richard Sandiford
 wrote:
> Not exactly the most exciting patches, and certainly not worth more than
> one ping, but:
>
>   libgcc copyright
>   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00642.html

This is OK.

Thanks.

Don't these count as obvious at this point?

Ian

Re: Ping: unreviewed copyright patches

[Ben Elliston]

On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 10:19:47AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:

>   libdecnumber copyright
>   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00647.html

I've refreshed my memory on the use of year ranges in the copyright
notice (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html).  Looking at the
ChangeLog, I think it's reasonable to assert copyright for 2005-2011,
but not 2012 or 2013.

I am happy with the change if the copyright is updated from
(firstyear-for-the-file) to 2011.

Cheers, Ben


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Ping: unreviewed copyright patches

[Bruce Korb]

On 02/03/13 09:42, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> You missed the file header.
> 
> That was deliberately in patch 2 though.

OK.

>> Why bother with dual update issues?
> 
> Well, the point is that patch 2 is scripted.

OK:
>  echo "$copyright" | sed 's/(C) 2002-/(C) /'

and now you print the right date and never have to hand update again.
And if the notice gets changed because of a new and better address
or whatever, just one place and not two.

I hate hand updating mind numbing stuff like this.  As you say:

> Believe me, I don't find copyright year lists vs. ranges any more
> interesting than the next man.  This really was supposed to be
> an attempt to make things simpler.

"simpler" as in trying to never have to think about it any more? :)

Re: Ping: unreviewed copyright patches

[Richard Sandiford]

Bruce Korb  writes:
> On 02/03/13 02:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Not exactly the most exciting patches, and certainly not worth more than
>> one ping, but:
>> 
>>   fixincludes copyright
>>   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00442.html
>
> You missed the file header.

That was deliberately in patch 2 though.

> Why bother with dual update issues?

Well, the point is that patch 2 is scripted.  Running the script as-is
would update both the header and version output.  That's actually what
I did in the original patch I posted back in January.  However, Joseph
pointed out that mkheaders should only print the last year rather than a
list of years or a range of years (apparently that's GNU policy):

   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00320.html

so patch 1 was supposed to be changing that first.

In other words, the copyright= suggestion seemed to be about having
the same string in both the headers and output, which is what you
also get by running the script.  But apparently the copyright notice
in the file header and the copyright notice that we print are supposed
to be different.

>>   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00443.html
>
> Is the project fixincludes, inclhack, gcc or unnamed?
> I think if you go to the trouble to clean all this up,
> one should be picked and it should be made consistent.  :)

OK, fair enough.  I guess I'll withdraw the fixincludes bits.

Believe me, I don't find copyright year lists vs. ranges any more
interesting than the next man.  This really was supposed to be
an attempt to make things simpler. :-)

Thanks,
Richard

Re: Ping: unreviewed copyright patches

[Bruce Korb]

On 02/03/13 02:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Not exactly the most exciting patches, and certainly not worth more than
> one ping, but:
> 
>   fixincludes copyright
>   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00442.html

You missed the file header.  Why bother with dual update issues?

> --- mkheaders.in(revision 194742) 
> 
> +++ mkheaders.in(working copy)
> 
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@   
> 
>  #!/bin/sh
> 
>   
> 
> -# Copyright (C) 2002, 2007, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.  
> 
> +# GCC Copyright (C) 2002-2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 
> 
>   
> 
>  #This file is part of GCC.   
> 
>   
> 
> @@ -41,10 +41,9 @@
> 
>   
> 
>  if [ x$1 = x--version ] ; then   
> 
>  echo "mkheaders (GCC) version $version"  
> 
> -echo "Copyright 2002, 2007, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc." 
> 
> -echo "This program is free software; you may redistribute it under the"  
> 
> -echo "terms of the GNU General Public License.  This program has"
> 
> -echo "absolutely no warranty."   
> 
> +sed '\@http://www.gnu.org/licenses@q 
> 
> +   \@/bin/sh@d   
> 
> +   s/^#* *//' `which $0` 
>   
>  exit 0   
> 
>  fi

Alternatively (and probably better):

> --- mkheaders.in(revision 194742)
> +++ mkheaders.in(working copy)
> @@ -1,22 +1,22 @@
>  #!/bin/sh
> +copyright='
> +GCC Copyright (C) 2002-2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>  
> -# Copyright (C) 2002, 2007, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> +This file is part of GCC.
>  
> -#This file is part of GCC.
> -
> -#GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
> -#the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
> -#Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option) any later
> -#version.
> -
> -#GCC is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
> -#ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
> -#FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License
> -#for more details.
> -
> -#You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> -#along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.  If not see
> -#.
> +GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
> +the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
> +Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option) any later
> +version.
> +
> +GCC is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
> +ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
> +FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License
> +for more details.
> +
> +You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> +along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.  If not see
> +.'
>  
>  # Basic information
>  target=@target@
> @@ -41,10 +41,7 @@
>  
>  if [ x$1 = x--version ] ; then
>  echo "mkheaders (GCC) version $version"
> -echo "Copyright 2002, 2007, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc."
> -echo "This program is free software; you may redistribute it under the"
> -echo "terms of the GNU General Public License.  This program has"
> -echo "absolutely no warranty."
> +echo "$copyright"
>  exit 0
>  fi
>  

Either way

===

>   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00443.html

Is the project fixincludes, inclhack, gcc or unnamed?
I think if you go to the trouble to clean all this up,
one should be picked and it should be made consistent.  :)
Personally, I think "GCC" first, "fixincludes" second.

> Index: gcc/fixincludes/fixinc.in
> ===
> --- gcc.orig/fixincludes/fixinc.in
> +++ gcc/fixincludes/fixinc.in
> @@ -6,8 +6,7 @@
>  #
>  # See README-fixinc for more information.
>  #
> -#  fixincludes copyright (c) 1998, 1999, 

Ping: unreviewed copyright patches

[Richard Sandiford]

Not exactly the most exciting patches, and certainly not worth more than
one ping, but:

  fixincludes copyright
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00442.html
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00443.html

  libgcc copyright
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00642.html

  libdecnumber copyright
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00647.html

Thanks,
Richard