Re: svn commit: r368462
Hey, Simon is on the PMC, so he should know. Just joking. Back to business: There is a recent thread on legal-discuss that should shed some light into this: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200601.mbox/browser Looks like I was taking this a little too strict earlier. And it turns out that the copyright year thing will likely soon be a thing of the past anyway. HTH On 14.01.2006 01:52:31 Manuel Mall wrote: snip/ It is quite equivocal for me. On the one hand it speaks about new significant content, which would mean: leave out 2005. On the other it speaks about a range of years due to the public accessibility (meaning continuous publication?), which would mean: 1999-2006. Simon, good point and I don't know the answer. My interpretation was to leave the 2005 out but I can see that leaving it in can be sensibly argued as well. But that's what we have our PMC for don't we? PMC please tell us committers how these ASF rules should be interpreted in the XMLGRAPHICS project. Jeremias Maerki
Re: svn commit: r368462
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 05:09 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote: Hey, Simon is on the PMC, so he should know. Just joking. Back to business: There is a recent thread on legal-discuss that should shed some light into this: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200601.mbo x/browser Looks like I was taking this a little too strict earlier. And it turns out that the copyright year thing will likely soon be a thing of the past anyway. HTH Not really as it still doesn't give us a direction what to do now. However, after reading the thread you pointed to and some related stuff it seems to me that ATM Copyright refers to something like: The year of publication for that particular copyrightable work, where copyrightable means the changes are significant enough to justify a separate copyright from the original. This means for trivial changes (which is a subjective thing of course) we shouldn't update the year, for others we should but need to leave gaps for years without copyrightable additions to the work. So the svn submit in question which triggered this thread is should have been either: Copyright 1999-2004, 2006 The Apache Software Foundation. or: no change to the copyright header if the change was trivial. Agreed ??? snip/ Jeremias Maerki Manuel
Re: svn commit: r368462
Exactly. On 14.01.2006 10:38:14 Manuel Mall wrote: On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 05:09 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote: Hey, Simon is on the PMC, so he should know. Just joking. Back to business: There is a recent thread on legal-discuss that should shed some light into this: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200601.mbo x/browser Looks like I was taking this a little too strict earlier. And it turns out that the copyright year thing will likely soon be a thing of the past anyway. HTH Not really as it still doesn't give us a direction what to do now. However, after reading the thread you pointed to and some related stuff it seems to me that ATM Copyright refers to something like: The year of publication for that particular copyrightable work, where copyrightable means the changes are significant enough to justify a separate copyright from the original. This means for trivial changes (which is a subjective thing of course) we shouldn't update the year, for others we should but need to leave gaps for years without copyrightable additions to the work. So the svn submit in question which triggered this thread is should have been either: Copyright 1999-2004, 2006 The Apache Software Foundation. or: no change to the copyright header if the change was trivial. Agreed ??? snip/ Jeremias Maerki Manuel Jeremias Maerki
Re: svn commit: r368462
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 07:34:40AM +0800, Manuel Mall wrote: On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 04:40 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: spepping Date: Thu Jan 12 12:40:08 2006 New Revision: 368462 xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/expr/FromParentFunct ion.java (original) +++ xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/expr/FromParentFunct ion.java Thu Jan 12 12:40:08 2006 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ /* - * Copyright 1999-2004 The Apache Software Foundation. + * Copyright 1999-2006 The Apache Software Foundation. * I know this is very picky but shouldn't this be written as: Copyright 1999-2004, 2006 The Apache Software Foundation. Unless there was a change to the file in 2005 (see http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html)? I thought of it when I made the change, but I did not know of any pertinent rule. At the page you link to, I suppose you aim at this phrase: Source files contributed to or developed as part of an ASF project should begin with a copyright notice like Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation. or Copyright 1999-2004 The Apache Software Foundation. or Copyright 2002,2004 The Apache Software Foundation. where the years given start with the first publication year of the file contents (the authored expression) and include a range of years for each year that new significant content (derivative work) is published within the file. Since the ASF publishes its code in public source code modules (CVS and Subversion), we generally want to include a range of years starting with the year of origin. It is quite equivocal for me. On the one hand it speaks about new significant content, which would mean: leave out 2005. On the other it speaks about a range of years due to the public accessibility (meaning continuous publication?), which would mean: 1999-2006. Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
Re: svn commit: r368462 - in /xmlgraphics/fop/trunk: src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/expr/ test/fotree/testcases/
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 04:40 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: spepping Date: Thu Jan 12 12:40:08 2006 New Revision: 368462 xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/expr/FromParentFunct ion.java (original) +++ xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/expr/FromParentFunct ion.java Thu Jan 12 12:40:08 2006 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ /* - * Copyright 1999-2004 The Apache Software Foundation. + * Copyright 1999-2006 The Apache Software Foundation. * I know this is very picky but shouldn't this be written as: Copyright 1999-2004, 2006 The Apache Software Foundation. Unless there was a change to the file in 2005 (see http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html)? Manuel
