On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 10:45:56AM +0100, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Exactly.
> 
> On 14.01.2006 10:38:14 Manuel Mall wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 05:09 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > > Hey, Simon is on the PMC, so he should know. Just joking. Back to
> > > business: There is a recent thread on legal-discuss that should shed
> > > some light into this:
> > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200601.mbo
> > >x/browser
> > >
> > > Looks like I was taking this a little too strict earlier. And it
> > > turns out that the copyright year thing will likely soon be a thing
> > > of the past anyway. HTH
> > >
> > 
> > Not really as it still doesn't give us a direction what to do now. 
> > 
> > However, after reading the thread you pointed to and some related stuff 
> > it seems to me that ATM Copyright refers to something like:
> > 
> > The year of publication for that particular copyrightable work, where 
> > "copyrightable" means the changes are significant enough to justify a 
> > separate copyright from the  original.
> > 
> > This means for trivial changes (which is a subjective thing of course) 
> > we shouldn't update the year, for others we should but need to leave 
> > gaps for years without copyrightable additions to the work. So the svn 
> > submit in question which triggered this thread is should have been 
> > either:
> > 
> > Copyright 1999-2004, 2006 The Apache Software Foundation.
> > 
> > or:
> > 
> > no change to the copyright header if the change was trivial.
> > 
> > Agreed ???

That is how I understand that email thread as well. I will change the
copyright years of the files affected so as to leave out 2005, when
they did not see any (significant) change.

Simon

-- 
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl

Reply via email to