[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 16:46 +0000, Richard Brown wrote: > Hi Neil > > On 01/01/2008, Neil Williams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Problem with that is that you haven't actually made a copyrightable > > change to the codebase in 2008 so the date is inaccurate. To be > > Copyright 2008, at least some of the code must have been modified or > > removed during 2008. > > > > There's no need to update copyright dates automatically. > > > But what about when you do make a change - doesn't that mean you have > to update it then? Yes, but then you're editing the files anyway. Version numbers/strings can be automated and incremented without changes in every single file. Copyright should be file-specific - if a file hasn't changed since 2000 but everything else in the package has changed, that file is still Copyright 2000, not Copyright 2008. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html