Re: [PATCH] maint: fix copyright dates that were munged by a maintenance script

Karl Berry wrote: > my concerns about misdating files. > > I'll ask Aaron about your change and see if I get a reply. It makes > sense to me, though it is quite a significant change from what was there > before. > > it certainly does for > gnulib, where the dates are maintained individ

Re: [PATCH] maint: fix copyright dates that were munged by a maintenance script

my concerns about misdating files. I'll ask Aaron about your change and see if I get a reply. It makes sense to me, though it is quite a significant change from what was there before. it certainly does for gnulib, where the dates are maintained individually. As I understood it, th

Re: [PATCH] maint: fix copyright dates that were munged by a maintenance script

On 11/08/2010 05:27 PM, Karl Berry wrote: > The whole point, as I understand it, is that it's *not fraudulent*. Not having access to the earlier conversation about this, I can only speculate that it was about a case where it was indeed not fraudulent. For example, if the copyright notice looked l

Re: [PATCH] maint: fix copyright dates that were munged by a maintenance script

if we don't care about collecting statutory damages for files like gunzip Yeah, yeah, I know, I know. I didn't quote the rest of Aaron's message where he addresses that. I should have known better than to actually try to simplify anything. I give up. criminal penalties for fraudule

Re: [PATCH] maint: fix copyright dates that were munged by a maintenance script

The above-quoted advice in maintain.texi A big part of why this so-incredibly-annoying issue never goes away, IMHO, is that that node in maintain.texi has accreted over decades of different advice and scenarios, never clearly distinguishing between them. Sigh. Since gunzip is a visually

Re: [PATCH] maint: fix copyright dates that were munged by a maintenance script

Paul Eggert wrote: > On 11/08/10 16:25, Karl Berry wrote: >> I quote the SFLC >> lawyer (Aaron Williamson) who replied to me most recently about this >> issue: >> >> More importantly, none of this much matters because *notice is not >> required for copyright protection.* > > True, if we don

Re: [PATCH] maint: fix copyright dates that were munged by a maintenance script

On 11/08/10 16:25, Karl Berry wrote: > I quote the SFLC > lawyer (Aaron Williamson) who replied to me most recently about this > issue: > > More importantly, none of this much matters because *notice is not > required for copyright protection.* True, if we don't care about collecting stat

Re: [PATCH] maint: fix copyright dates that were munged by a maintenance script

On 11/08/10 08:48, Jim Meyering wrote: > I'm inclined to update those scripts, putting $year in place of > the single year number there now. Hmm, that will run into a problem, discussed below. I'll CC: bug-standa...@gnu.org since there's a copyright-notice issue in this thread

Re: [PATCH] maint: fix copyright dates that were munged by a maintenance script

On 11/08/2010 09:48 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: > Also relevant, here are some relatively new > guidelines from maintain.texi: > > ... > It is recommended and simpler to add the new year to all files in the > package, and be done with it for the rest of the year. > > ... > You can

Re: [PATCH] maint: fix copyright dates that were munged by a maintenance script

Paul Eggert wrote: > * gunzip.in, gzexe.in, zcat.in, zcmp.in, zdiff.in, zforce.in: > * zgrep.in, zless.in, zmore.in, znew.in: > A script went awry when updating copyright dates in gzip's shell > scripts. It should update comments to look like "# Copyright (C) > 2007, 2010 Free Software Foundation,