On Thu, 23 Feb 2012, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Thursday 23 February 2012 07:24 pm, Doug Barton wrote:
On 02/23/2012 16:17, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
I remember there were some discussions in developers@ that
"2009-2012" is more appropriate than "2009, 2010, 2012" or
"2009-2010, 2012", if my memory serves. Anyone?
"2009, 2010, 2012" is as synonym for "2009-2010, 2012" and I see it
both ways. That's not the issue. (However, if it were 2008-2010
that is generally preferred vs. listing all 3 years individually.)
The issue is that it's a basic tenet of copyright law that you
cannot claim copyright in a year that you didn't actually make any
changes. This makes sense if you think about it ... your rights
from the last year you changed something don't expire at the end of
that year, and if you didn't make changes in 2011 you don't have
any new material that needs protection.
Make changes or publish them? What about limited publication?
I am not a lawyer but I do know the date is optional, at least in the
US. I just googled a bit. Some people say "first-last" form is
fine. Some say otherwise. Also, it seems it depends on where they
live. Is there any authoritative answer from the Foundation, I
wonder?
For instance:
Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993,
1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights
reserved.
Yeah, I know that example very well. I've seen that copyright notice
for two decades or so. :-)
Did they not work on it in 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990?
Seems unlikely :-). Of course, they just didn't publish it. Gaps
won't exist now, since there is more pressure to publish and a public
repository gives a publication every nanosecond.
I look (sic) forward to reading the 2000-4000 copyright, which resembles
$(jot 2000 2000).
Bruce
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
