Yes...to clarify, it's not a real copyright. It's an example of a copyright.
So the question is what copyright should I use so that it's not mistaken for a real copyright. On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 6:43 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 6:28 PM Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > That's confusing. Here are some questions and thoughts. > > > > A) 2001? > > > > B) the only Apache foundation is the Apache software foundation. What did > > you mean by foobar? > > > > C) you don't need a copyright notice on code included in the > documentation. > > Save that for the copy of the sample code that you put into a separate > > file. > > > > > That's actually why I asked James to pose the question on the general > list. I wasn't particularly sure if he found the right file, based on the > comments made by Justin and was hoping Justin could speak up to explain why > it is or isn't an issue, and if there's a way to include a sample atom that > wouldn't get flagged. I had posed on the list "1955 - 1971, Fake Atom > Enterprises" which obviously would be an invalid copyright used only for > demonstration purposes. (for those unfamiliar, US Copyright law started in > 1976, entities prior to that date wouldn't have been valid). > > > > > > On Jul 3, 2017 2:38 PM, "James Bognar" <jamesbog...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Need some quick guidance. > > > > > > On the release vote for Juneau 6.3.0, Justin Mclean made this note... > > > "There's a number of "Copyright (c) 2016, Apache Foundation” in the > > > documentation you may want to update the year." > > > > > > I tracked it down to sample code where the copyright statement itself > was > > > sample code. (i.e. showing how to create an ATOM feed with an embedded > > > copyright statement). > > > > > > Can I change it to the following so that it's not flagged in the > future? > > > > > > "Copyright (c) 2001, Apache Foobar Foundation” > > > > > > Or better ideas? > > > > > >
