On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 03:52 am, Simon Pepping wrote: > 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/FromParentF > > >unct ion.java (original) +++ > > > xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/expr/FromParentF > > >unct 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, good point and I don't know the answer. My interpretation was to leave the 2005 out but I can see that leaving it in can be sensibly argued as well. But that's what we have our PMC for don't we? PMC please tell us committers how these ASF rules should be interpreted in the XMLGRAPHICS project. > Simon Manuel
