Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-22 Thread Daniel Berlin
The ASF doesn't require copyright lines, AFAIK. To whit: httpd has *none* in the their repository. Here's a random file: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/apreq_module_cgi.c?view=markup Copyright lines are legally meaningless. In fact, you are usually worse often having them

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 20.03.2015 14:33, Branko Čibej wrote: > > On 20.03.2015 14:31, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Stefan Sperling >> > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:34:00AM +0100, Branko Č

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Branko Čibej
On 20.03.2015 16:04, Daniel Berlin wrote: > The ASF doesn't require copyright lines, AFAIK. > > To whit: httpd has *none* in the their repository. > Here's a random file: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/apreq_module_cgi.c?view=markup > > Copyright lines are legally meanin

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Julian Foad
Branko Čibej wrote: >>> Could we have a buildbot test for this kind of problem? >>> Should our rat-report bot (which I can't seem to locate in the maze >>> of buildbot right now) perhaps check for this? >> >> Yes, I think we should add a simple C test calling svn_version_extended. >> If the year di

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Branko Čibej
On 20.03.2015 14:33, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 20.03.2015 14:31, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Stefan Sperling > > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:34:00AM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote: >> > I just noticed that we forgot to bump the disp

RE: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Bert Huijben
> -Original Message- > From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com] > Sent: vrijdag 20 maart 2015 14:40 > To: Branko Čibej > Cc: Subversion Development > Subject: Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools > > Stefan Sperling writes: > &

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Philip Martin
Stefan Sperling writes: > Could we have a buildbot test for this kind of problem? > Should our rat-report bot (which I can't seem to locate in the maze > of buildbot right now) perhaps check for this? I have modified release.py to warn when NOTICE contains a date that is not current http://svn.a

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Branko Čibej
On 20.03.2015 14:31, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Stefan Sperling > wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:34:00AM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote: > > I just noticed that we forgot to bump the displayed copyright year. > > Fixed in r1667941

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:34:00AM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote: > > I just noticed that we forgot to bump the displayed copyright year. > > Fixed in r1667941 and nominated for backport to 1.9.x, 1.8.x and 1.7.x. > > I also vetoed the 1.7.20

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2015-03-20 03:58:24 -0500, Greg Stein wrote: > Daniel Berlin stated many years ago that the years associated with > copyright lines are meaningless. There are lots of particular cases, depending on the country of publication, the year of publication, and so on. According to https://copyright

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Branko Čibej
On 20.03.2015 14:08, Bert Huijben wrote: > > Just a quick check, using the tag creation dates and what is in the file: > > 1.1.3 > > 1.1.4 > > 1.4.3 > > 1.4.4 > > 1.4.5 > > 1.6.8 > > 1.6.9 > > 1.6.10 > > 1.6.11 > > 1.6.12 > > 1.6.13 > > 1.6.14 > > 1.6.15 > > 1.6.16 > > 1.6.17 > > 1.6.18 > > 1.6.19

RE: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Bert Huijben
as-is. Bert From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] Sent: vrijdag 20 maart 2015 09:58 To: Branko Čibej Cc: Subversion Development Subject: Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools Daniel Berlin stated many years ago that the years associated with copyright line

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Julian Foad
Branko Čibej wrote: > I just fixed that and proposed the backports ... and IMO NOTICE is an > even stronger reason not to release as-is. Surely we should apply the > same standards to our releases as that we regularly brainwash podlings > about. We should apply the same standards, yes. Is this iss

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Branko Čibej
On 20.03.2015 11:07, Greg Stein wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Branko Čibej > wrote: > >... > > IMO, we should either not display the year (which IIUC would > violate ASF policy), or we should display the correct year. > Anything else makes us look

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Greg Stein
Let me expand on that a bit ... let's not hold any releases for this, but let's talk to Danny and other peeps at the ASF. I believe we can clear out a few lines. Pointing to subversion.a.o is nice. We should be able to scorch the other 3 lines. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Greg Stein wrote:

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Greg Stein
hehe... I think it is time to kill that off, with extreme prejudice :-D On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 20.03.2015 11:07, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Branko Čibej > > wrote: > > >... > > > > IMO, we should eithe

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Branko Čibej
On 20.03.2015 11:07, Greg Stein wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Branko Čibej > wrote: > >... > > IMO, we should either not display the year (which IIUC would > violate ASF policy), or we should display the correct year. > Anything else makes us look

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Greg Stein
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: >... > IMO, we should either not display the year (which IIUC would violate ASF > policy), or we should display the correct year. Anything else makes us look > silly. > Hmm? Policy is at: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html And th

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Greg Stein
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: >... > IMO, we should either not display the year (which IIUC would violate ASF > policy), or we should display the correct year. Anything else makes us look > silly. > Hmm? Policy is at: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html And th

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Branko Čibej
On 20.03.2015 10:28, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 20.03.2015 09:58, Greg Stein wrote: >> Daniel Berlin stated many years ago that the years associated with >> copyright lines are meaningless. There is no reason to burn/re-roll >> just for that. >> >> The simple fact is that if you end up in court, then

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Branko Čibej
On 20.03.2015 09:58, Greg Stein wrote: > Daniel Berlin stated many years ago that the years associated with > copyright lines are meaningless. There is no reason to burn/re-roll > just for that. > > The simple fact is that if you end up in court, then what is printed > to the console has ZERO beari

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Greg Stein
Daniel Berlin stated many years ago that the years associated with copyright lines are meaningless. There is no reason to burn/re-roll just for that. The simple fact is that if you end up in court, then what is printed to the console has ZERO bearing (or what year is listed in a source file). The

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Branko Čibej
On 20.03.2015 08:47, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:34:00AM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote: >> I just noticed that we forgot to bump the displayed copyright year. >> Fixed in r1667941 and nominated for backport to 1.9.x, 1.8.x and 1.7.x. >> I also vetoed the 1.7.20 and 1.8.13 releas

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:34:00AM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote: > I just noticed that we forgot to bump the displayed copyright year. > Fixed in r1667941 and nominated for backport to 1.9.x, 1.8.x and 1.7.x. > I also vetoed the 1.7.20 and 1.8.13 releases because of the wrong year > ... we really shou

Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

2015-03-20 Thread Branko Čibej
I just noticed that we forgot to bump the displayed copyright year. Fixed in r1667941 and nominated for backport to 1.9.x, 1.8.x and 1.7.x. I also vetoed the 1.7.20 and 1.8.13 releases because of the wrong year ... we really shouldn't release with wrong legalese, and we already allowed 1.9.0-beta1