On Fri, 5 May 2017 13:18:58 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 May 2017 18:55:41 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On pią, 2017-05-05 at 10:35 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > > # Copyright 2017 Gentoo Foundation > > > > Aren't we supposed to use the full range of years here? > > It applies when something comes into existing. If this eclass did not > exist in 2016, a copyright for that year would not be correct. > > This maybe different for ebuilds, as that could be considered derived > from the original ebuild. First one ever written. I am not sure the > same applies to eclasses, but it might. In that case the year of the > first eclass would be correct. > > I guess it is safe to always use the oldest year. It may not be good to use the oldest year. Rather the first year something came into existence. "If the copyright duration depends on the date of first publication and the year given in the notice is earlier than the actual publication date, protection may be shortened by beginning the term on the date in the notice" https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf That means if you author something in 2017, and put down say 1999-2017. You are starting at 1999, and not 2017. Losing 16 years for no reason. -- William L. Thomson Jr.
pgpH1kOSyQLGf.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
