On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:28, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Wednesday 19 March 2003 21:53, Leo Simons wrote: > > Peter Donald wrote: > > > So if it was created in 2000 and edited in all years since it would be > > > 2000-2003, if it was edited in 2000 and again this year it would be > > > 2000,2003 or various other combinations (ie 2000-2001,2003). > > > > We talked about this on the PMC list recently (or was it here?). The > > resolution was that it is not terribly important from a legal POV to > > update this copyright information very exactly.
if you want to ever be able to enforce the license it is. While not covered by contractual law (at least in Australia/US) it is close enough and it would never stand up in court of law. > If something is marked > > as copyrighted in 2000, it will remain copyrighted for the next 50 years > > or so (forgot the exact number); not renewing the copyright claim simply > > means that after that time the copyright becomes non-enforcable. It is not about that. > Maybe I'm too frivolous on this, and missing something truely important. no - you got it. -- Cheers, Peter Donald ------------------------------------------------------------ militant agnostic: i don't know, and you don't know either. ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
