John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There could be if you do so in a way that could be construed as an attempt
> to fraudulently extend the life of the copyright.
At the moment it seems doubtful that any current copyright will
ever expire.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http:/
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas writes:
> > It should be every year that the work was published. (If you publish in
> > year N, then modify and publish the new thing in year M, you should list
> > both years.)
>
> > There is no harm in listing extra years.
>
> There could be if
Thomas writes:
> It should be every year that the work was published. (If you publish in
> year N, then modify and publish the new thing in year M, you should list
> both years.)
> There is no harm in listing extra years.
There could be if you do so in a way that could be construed as an attempt
Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Shouldn't you include a year?
> > >
> > > It's not required. And I get bored by updating them.
> >
> > The year should be included. Here is a reference:
> > http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
>
> If only one year is listed in a source fil
> > > Shouldn't you include a year?
> >
> > It's not required. And I get bored by updating them.
>
> The year should be included. Here is a reference:
> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
If only one year is listed in a source file / copyright file, should
it be the first year the work st
On Thursday 13 January 2005 11:18 am, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > [updating copyright years]
> >
> > > I have a handy-dandy emacs lisp frob that will do this automagically
> > > for you if you like.
>
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:27:12AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Like I care about that stuff. All I could ever want from copyright on
> > a GPLed work is an injunction to stop violating it.
>
> Actually, you can even fail to get that in pra
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Like I care about that stuff. All I could ever want from copyright on
> a GPLed work is an injunction to stop violating it.
Actually, you can even fail to get that in practice. Really, just put
the date; it's not too much trouble.
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:16:19AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:08:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > It's not required. And I get bored by updat
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [updating copyright years]
> > I have a handy-dandy emacs lisp frob that will do this automagically
> > for you if you like.
>
> I would like this.
;; When we save a file with a GPL copyright, prompt to
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:08:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > It's not required. And I get bored by updating them.
> >
> > Yes, the year is required, and moreover, you need to add a new
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It's not required. And I get bored by updating them.
>
> Yes, the year is required, and moreover, you need to add a new year
> every time there is a new publication in a year not already mentioned
>
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:08:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It's not required. And I get bored by updating them.
>
> Yes, the year is required, and moreover, you need to add a new year
> every time there is a new publication in a year n
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[updating copyright years]
> I have a handy-dandy emacs lisp frob that will do this automagically
> for you if you like.
I would like this.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://benpfaff.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTEC
Thomas writes:
> Yes, the year is required, and moreover, you need to add a new year every
> time there is a new publication in a year not already mentioned (without
> removing the old years, since the new publication is a derived work).
No notice is required by law at all. However, it is a good
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's not required. And I get bored by updating them.
Yes, the year is required, and moreover, you need to add a new year
every time there is a new publication in a year not already mentioned
(without removing the old years, since the new publication i
> > Shouldn't you include a year?
>
> It's not required. And I get bored by updating them.
>
The year should be included. Here is a reference:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
An excerpt:
The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all the
following three elements:
1.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:59:55PM -0600, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For a GPLed project, the declaration looks something like this:
> >
> > * Copyright (C) Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Shouldn't you include a year?
It's not required.
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For a GPLed project, the declaration looks something like this:
>
> * Copyright (C) Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Shouldn't you include a year?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:52:06PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been manually filing bugs against packages with improper
> copyright files, as per this thread:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/03/msg02190.html
The example here is not a good one. While it's not de
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 12:52 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been manually filing bugs against packages with improper
> copyright files, as per this thread:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/03/msg02190.html
>
> I stopped when I started gettign consecutive bug numbers
Scripsit Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Copyright:
> GPL 2.0
> Copyright: Most recent version of the GPL.
> Copyright:
> [GPL follows]
http://lintian.debian.org/reports/Tcopyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-gpl.html
lists 264 packages. Some of the
Hi all,
I've been manually filing bugs against packages with improper
copyright files, as per this thread:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/03/msg02190.html
I stopped when I started gettign consecutive bug numbers :) I've been
using Severity: normal, although it is arguably a violati
23 matches
Mail list logo
