-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 As we're on copyright headers topic, is there a clear policy what headers to use for contributed code, like the one Joyent did or CloudSigma ?
Should it be: // Copyright 2014 Canonical Ltd. // Copyright 2014 CONTRIBUTOR-XYZ.. // Licensed under the AGPLv3, see LICENCE file for details. Or: // Copyright 2014 CONTRIBUTOR-XYZ.. // Licensed under the AGPLv3, see LICENCE file for details. Or even: // Copyright 2014 Canonical Ltd. // Licensed under the AGPLv3, see LICENCE file for details. That to me seems more important than should we update the year when we change the file. On 4.09.2014 03:04, Andrew Wilkins wrote: > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Ian Booth <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi folks > > The question recently came up in reviews as to whether we should > be updating the date in the copyright statement in the file header > when we make a change to the code in that file. I sought > clarification from Robie Basak, who previously had provided input > on licensing issues and compliance for getting Juju included in > trusty. Below is what he said. > > TL;DR; It doesn't really matter, we just need to agree on a policy. > It is suggested though that we do update the date when we make a > change. Agree? > > <snip> >> >> What's our policy for dates in copyright headers? >> >> // Copyright 2012, 2013 Canonical Ltd. // Licensed under the >> AGPLv3, see LICENCE file for details. > > From the point of view of acceptability for Ubuntu, it doesn't > particularly matter, and I don't believe it'll cause any issue for > us whatever you do here. I'll certainly be happy to upload whether > or not you update the date. > > I'll try to explain my perspective on this, but I'm not entirely > confident that there isn't something I'm missing for the broader > picture, so note that I Am Not A Lawyer, etc. > >> For the above, do we need to add 2014 if we modify the file this >> year? Or is the date just meant to be the year the file was first >> published? > > I think it's meant to be the sum of all the copyright claims on > the file. So if you add some new code, you have a copyright claim > on the new code in the newer year in which you made it. > > AIUI, the purpose of the date is that since copyright expires > (theoretically, anyway), updating the date updates the copyright > claim, which would give us more control in the (eventual) event > that copyright expires. > > In practice, IMHO this is never going to matter since nobody is > going to care about the copyright on a piece of software that is > that old anyway. But I suppose laws could change, so the right > thing to do would be to add a new year whenever you make a change > in a new year on a per-file file basis. BTW, it's common to fold > "2012, 2013, 2014" to just "2012-2014". > > But I don't particularly care for upload purposes. > > > Depending on the country, copyright notices require the first year > of publication. I'm not aware of any that *require* the full range, > but in some cases it is recommended to have it on ongoing works as > a claim of authorship. As Gustavo says, we have this in revision > control. We work in the open. Let's not get distracted with > unnecessary work. > > - -- Dimiter Naydenov <[email protected]> juju-core team -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUCAeJAAoJENzxV2TbLzHw9S4IAKn3xfbzaoIrGweWgtUE9jxS 0c6/Hwluwnekj4ERjkDvO6fN2zCGcMOi55Itq6IuBpR8zKnT5bhNORTJbi0KKIiF qh3gFpfDmju2u3fo3LFNxmRxSI7CWpeOf6fuRzcGk45P1v6RafrfQQjxKAorDtxe iNRZswvTY3RfYHZwGo92zxENGLsJm0oQ8BA3YBDa5mNVyBk/SFuI1jLJSNzvCSCQ pD+kzrWr2JMV/hHscba/OcZuZtvWPwYTWP1zeRRVJKiU9HPsDtKhfl2kCtF5olqO zl1gHIyetzwdNalJjfkHs1o5Trrvi0EkYpp++CXHRU8H5KZz22AhzRG5qULbIfs= =IotS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
