> >> - Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Red Hat, Inc. > >> + Copyright 1998-2002 Red Hat, Inc. > > A quick note about changing Copyright years like this... don't do it! The > > two are *not* equivalent. > > No, but need they be? The silly comma separated list will get out of > hand, at some point in the future. Each release should hold the (c) > marker that's applicable to that release, why should later releases > hold markers that are not applicable anyway? > > > Ranges are only allowed if development was carried out in that range > > of years, but a version was completed for release only in the final > > year of the range. > > If you get hold of, say, a 1999 release (tarball, cvs -D checkout), > you'll see the range > > 1998-1999 > > which will cover the only interesting thing: (c) over 1999 release. > If you look at a 2002 tarball, you'll see > > 1998-2002 Since when have common sense and the law gone together. I would point out that the GCC team have recently changed all their copyrights from the incorrect range format to a list of years because this is simply the right thing to do from a legal point of view. (see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-01/msg01192.html). Yes, the list of years can become unweidly, but that's irrelevant.
Regards Chris
