On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:09 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 10, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: > > > > Two thoughts: > > > > > > 1) How is the end-year of the copyright done? AIUI, that should be the > > > year of last edit and not the year in which it is built. So if I build > > > something that hasn't been touched in a year, it should still have > > > last year's year on it. > > > > I think it is the current year. I could argue that this is only > > relevant for releases, at which time the version in the pom has > > changed, and the pom is included in the artifacts, therefore > > something has changed, but that argument is a bit weak. Personally I > > think having a copyright date range from project inception to now is > > better than having definitely out-of-date NOTICE files included in > > most or all artifacts, which is positively assured if this process is > > done by hand. > > > > Is this a blocker? > > Not sure. Sam/others?
Not a blocker. What (little) I know about the subject, I discussed here: http://wiki.apache.org/legal/3party/notice/discuss - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
