On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > Joseph, do you know why implicitly adding years to the claimed > > copyright years is a problem? I'm guessing the file needs to be > > published somewhere for each year claimed. > > IANAL, but from 2 discussions with copyright-clerk: > > 1. We start claiming copyright the year the file as committed > to a medium (hard drive), not the year it was published.
I don't think it counts unless the version in question got published at some point. The question is about versions that weren't published at the time, but were published later when the version control history was released. There was a discussion on bug-standards starting Jan 2012. Karl's revised wording from 11 May 2012 seems to indicate that if a version was committed to a version control history that was later released, the dates from that history count as copyrightable years (so reducing the number of cases where it may not be possible to fill in gaps) - but that revised wording doesn't seem to have been committed. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
