On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 09:57:59AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > Also note that year ranges (or list of years) are ambiguous. For > > instance, this version of Mutt is not the one that was published > > in 1996. The copyright notice should normally give only the year > > of the first publication, which will be 2020 for version 1.14. > > This is not completely accurate, at least under US law. If you keep a > mix of old and new content, your copyright date may be a range of > years instead of a single year. You will often see this in revised > editions of old books, though the practice does seem to be less common > recently. This is the case with Mutt, and we had this conversation > when Thomas revised the copyright notices the first time someone > pointed out they weren't current while he was maintainer.
Some references: Australia https://epiphany.law/articles/copyright/copyright-dates-single-year-or-range International (only mentions websites and blogs explicitly) https://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-symbol-notice-year/ (International) US https://danashultz.com/2013/10/09/copyright-notice-with-multiple-years-legitimate/ I can't quickly find a specific reference to site, but my recollection is that the idea here is that a frequently-updated work has multiple years of "first publication", and expressing the date as a range of years is how you cover that. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
