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