On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 10:38:04AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > I do not believe that there is a notion of "package" copyright in
> > most countries' laws.
>
> On page
> http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html
> I see this:
>
> To update the list of year numbe
On 1/5/14 12:00 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>According to Savannah, you still have push privileges (and I should be
>surprised if not). What did you try? What was the error message? Did
>you perhaps not use a member checkout?
>http://savannah.gnu.org/git/?group=lilypond>
Yes, that was the pr
> I don't think there is a mistake in the conversion script. I think
> this was a hypothetical, rather than an actual case where 2012
> turned to 2014. [...]
Very good, thanks for checking.
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@
On 1/5/14 12:09 AM, "Werner LEMBERG" wrote:
>
>> I'm not a lawyer, but the year in a copyright notice is supposed to
>> be the year of original publication. If you have a document first
>> published in 2012 with a "Copyright 2012" notice and you change the
>> year to 2014 without making any oth
Carl Sorensen writes:
> In response to issue 3765, I ran make grand-replace to update all copyright
> notices to 2014.
>
> It looks like I no longer have push privileges, so I couldn't push the
> patch to staging.
According to Savannah, you still have push privileges (and I should be
surprised i
>> AFAIK, this is not correct. We have to make a distinction between
>> singular files and files that a part of a package. What matters
>> for us is the *package* copyright.
>
> I do not believe that there is a notion of "package" copyright in
> most countries' laws.
On page
http://www.gnu.
On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 09:37:30AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > The purpose of listing the year is to give an indication of when the
> > copyright will expire.
>
> AFAIK, this is not correct. We have to make a distinction between
> singular files and files that a part of a package. What m
>> Looks like a mistake in the conversion script. `2012' should be
>> changed to `2012-2014', of course.
>
> The purpose of listing the year is to give an indication of when the
> copyright will expire. If the last copyrightable change to a
> document was in 2012, but the notice says 2014, then
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> Looks like a mistake in the conversion script. `2012' should be
> changed to `2012-2014', of course.
The purpose of listing the year is to give an indication of when the
copyright will expire. If the last copyrightable change to a document
> "You can use a range (‘2008-2010’) instead of listing individual
> years (‘2008, 2009, 2010’) if and only if: 1) every year in the
> range, inclusive, really is a “copyrightable” year that would be
> listed individually; and 2) you make an explicit statement in a
> README file about this usage."
On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 08:42:59AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> >> Looks like a mistake in the conversion script. `2012' should be
> >> changed to `2012-2014', of course.
> >
> > GNU maintainer's guide discourages that:
> > http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html#Co
>> Looks like a mistake in the conversion script. `2012' should be
>> changed to `2012-2014', of course.
>
> GNU maintainer's guide discourages that:
> http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html#Copyright-Notices
What exactly does it discourage?
> However, it's also true
On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 08:09:45AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > I'm not a lawyer, but the year in a copyright notice is supposed to
> > be the year of original publication. If you have a document first
> > published in 2012 with a "Copyright 2012" notice and you change the
> > year to 2014 w
> I'm not a lawyer, but the year in a copyright notice is supposed to
> be the year of original publication. If you have a document first
> published in 2012 with a "Copyright 2012" notice and you change the
> year to 2014 without making any other changes, [...]
Looks like a mistake in the conver
I'm not a lawyer, but the year in a copyright notice is supposed to be the
year of original publication. If you have a document first published in
2012 with a "Copyright 2012" notice and you change the year to 2014 without
making any other changes, the original publication year is still 2012 but
no
15 matches
Mail list logo
