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

Reply via email to