Re: Copyright years (was Re: help/version patches)

2002-02-27 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 02:11:11PM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: >"Chris January" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Since when have common sense and the law gone together. > >Hmm, that's a good point. I think there was some logic to what I >said, but that may well be irrelevant. > >> I would poi

Re: Copyright years (was Re: help/version patches)

2002-02-27 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen
"Chris January" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Since when have common sense and the law gone together. Hmm, that's a good point. I think there was some logic to what I said, but that may well be irrelevant. > I would point out that the GCC team have recently changed all their > copyrights from

Re: Copyright years (was Re: help/version patches)

2002-02-27 Thread Chris January
> >> - Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Red Hat, Inc. > >> + Copyright 1998-2002 Red Hat, Inc. > > A quick note about changing Copyright years like this... don't do it! The > > two are *not* equivalent. > > No, but need they be? The silly comma separated list will get out of > hand, at some p

Re: Copyright years (was Re: help/version patches)

2002-02-27 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen
"Chris January" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> - Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Red Hat, Inc. >> + Copyright 1998-2002 Red Hat, Inc. > A quick note about changing Copyright years like this... don't do it! The > two are *not* equivalent. No, but need they be? The silly comma separated list

Copyright years (was Re: help/version patches)

2002-02-27 Thread Chris January
> - Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Red Hat, Inc. > + Copyright 1998-2002 Red Hat, Inc. A quick note about changing Copyright years like this... don't do it! The two are *not* equivalent. See http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_8.html on the GNU website for more information, but basically if a n