> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2004 2:31 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Code Copyright > > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm looking at your Happy New Year commit, and wonder about the > > rational behind not listing years the source was not changed; > > I don't understand American Copyright law even remotely well enough to > actually tell you 8-) > > I've been taught (by Australians, mind you), to write the Copyright > lines exactly that way. Include the years it has changed and don't > list the years that didn't see any changes. >
This is from my "Taligent Guide to Designing Programs" "If you significantly modify a file, list the year of modification. The years correspond to publication, not creation dates. Separate consecutive years with a dash, but off-years with a comma" This was published in 1994, for C++ programs. How much of the above is required and how much is merely convention, I'm not sure. Regardless, the dates not listed do not imply there is no copyright asserted for those years. Conor --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
