On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 07:34:40AM +0800, Manuel Mall wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 04:40 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Author: spepping > > Date: Thu Jan 12 12:40:08 2006 > > New Revision: 368462 > > > > xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/expr/FromParentFunct > >ion.java (original) +++ > > xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/expr/FromParentFunct > >ion.java Thu Jan 12 12:40:08 2006 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ > > /* > > - * Copyright 1999-2004 The Apache Software Foundation. > > + * Copyright 1999-2006 The Apache Software Foundation. > > * > I know this is very picky but shouldn't this be written as: > > Copyright 1999-2004, 2006 The Apache Software Foundation. > > Unless there was a change to the file in 2005 (see > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html)?
I thought of it when I made the change, but I did not know of any pertinent rule. At the page you link to, I suppose you aim at this phrase: > Source files contributed to or developed as part of an ASF project > should begin with a copyright notice like > > Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation. > or > Copyright 1999-2004 The Apache Software Foundation. > or > Copyright 2002,2004 The Apache Software Foundation. > > where the years given start with the first publication year of the > file contents (the authored expression) and include a range of years > for each year that new significant content (derivative work) is > published within the file. Since the ASF publishes its code in public > source code modules (CVS and Subversion), we generally want to include > a range of years starting with the year of origin. It is quite equivocal for me. On the one hand it speaks about new significant content, which would mean: leave out 2005. On the other it speaks about a range of years due to the public accessibility (meaning continuous publication?), which would mean: 1999-2006. Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl