IANAL, but I think it is sufficient to indicate the year the
copyrighted entity was first published and the last year it was
revised instead of enumerating all the years it was revised.
Well, yes, a lot of us agree with that, but RMS doesn't and his is the
only vote that counts here!
(still off topic! sorry!)
In fact, the US Copyright law seems to need only
the first year of publication:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#fnv
but I guess we want to be really conservative
across countries and their laws on copyright.
Actually even the first year is not required.
> IANAL,
Well, Eben *is* a lawyer, and he says to do it the way we do it. So
we do. If you want to know why, go to gnu.misc.discuss. GCC
developers just do what we're told as far as this is concerned.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Just to remember you all that before committing a patch, you now have to
> check if the copyright year includes 2006.
IANAL, but I think it is sufficient to indicate the
year the copyrighted entity was first published and
the l
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 04:41:11PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> > Just to remember you all that before committing a patch, you now have to
> > check
> > if the copyright year includes 2006.
>
> And this includes the --version copyright year of any
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Just to remember you all that before committing a patch, you now have to check
> if the copyright year includes 2006.
And this includes the --version copyright year of any program your code
forms part of, and the overall copyright notice dates of any ma
Just to remember you all that before committing a patch, you now have to
check if the copyright year includes 2006.
CCing people who committed patches so far this year. :-)
Paolo
