[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nd 2004/01/01 05:26:26
Log:
update license to 2004.
Why? Unless the file changes in 2004, the copyright doesn't. And, in any
case, the earliest date applies, so it gets us nowhere.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
* Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nd 2004/01/01 05:26:26
Log:
update license to 2004.
Why? Unless the file changes in 2004, the copyright doesn't. And, in any
case, the earliest date applies, so it gets us nowhere.
It was done for LICENSE 1.0
On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 13:32, Ben Laurie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nd 2004/01/01 05:26:26
Log:
update license to 2004.
Why? Unless the file changes in 2004, the copyright doesn't. And, in any
case, the earliest date applies, so it gets us nowhere.
We seem to have
-Original Message-
From: André Malo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why? Unless the file changes in 2004, the copyright
doesn't. And, in
any case, the earliest date applies, so it gets us nowhere.
It was done for LICENSE 1.0 and 1.1 all the time for some
reason. But I don't
On 02.01.2004, at 14:34, Sander Striker wrote:
On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 13:32, Ben Laurie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nd 2004/01/01 05:26:26
Log:
update license to 2004.
Why? Unless the file changes in 2004, the copyright doesn't. And, in
any
case, the earliest date applies, so it
