> Also, why make the example strange? Why not take a real copyright header > for an example?
A real copyright header can be mistaken for an actual copyright which gets flagged during releases. On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 2017 3:43 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. > > > ... > > > > > > > > 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). > > > US copyright laws started with authorization in the Constitution followed > by enabling legislation shortly after Independence. > > US laws *changed* several times after that point. A particularly big change > occurred in 1989 when the US entered the Berne convention by passing > implementing legislation. > > Not sure what you could be thinking relative to 1976. > > Also, why make the example strange? Why not take a real copyright header > for an example? > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > >
