On Thursday 23 February 2012 07:24 pm, Doug Barton wrote: > On 02/23/2012 16:17, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > I remember there were some discussions in developers@ that > > "2009-2012" is more appropriate than "2009, 2010, 2012" or > > "2009-2010, 2012", if my memory serves. Anyone? > > "2009, 2010, 2012" is as synonym for "2009-2010, 2012" and I see it > both ways. That's not the issue. (However, if it were 2008-2010 > that is generally preferred vs. listing all 3 years individually.) > > The issue is that it's a basic tenet of copyright law that you > cannot claim copyright in a year that you didn't actually make any > changes. This makes sense if you think about it ... your rights > from the last year you changed something don't expire at the end of > that year, and if you didn't make changes in 2011 you don't have > any new material that needs protection.
I am not a lawyer but I do know the date is optional, at least in the US. I just googled a bit. Some people say "first-last" form is fine. Some say otherwise. Also, it seems it depends on where they live. Is there any authoritative answer from the Foundation, I wonder? > For instance: > > Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, > 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights > reserved. Yeah, I know that example very well. I've seen that copyright notice for two decades or so. :-) Jung-uk Kim _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
