Right. Consider it done. On Saturday, 4 August 2012 11:59:29 UTC-5, Alec Taylor wrote: > > On a slightly unrelated note, can we update the copyright all over > web2py.com and the layout.html that is shipped with newer web2py versions > to 2012? > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com>wrote: > >> On 4 Aug 2012, at 9:04 AM, Rob_McC <mrmccorm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks for insight... >> >> *Q: Where did you see © preferred?* >> >Ref: http://www.copyrightauthority.com/copyright-symbol/ >> *"However,... always use the number code instead of the symbol code.... >> ©"* >> (after examining the site, maybe not an authority? :) >> >> >> I think that site is pretty good, but that specific advice is perhaps a >> little stale. My rationale for sticking with © is just for >> readability—and that's not a terribly strong argument, since it's fairly >> clear from context what © must be... >> >> Comment: >> *>Finally, there's a legal argument for leaving it alone. The © date is >> the date of first publication, not necessarily the date of the last edit. >> * >> . I know what you mean. I remember Micro$oft using a range of dates on >> software (c) Microsoft 1996-2003 >> but, as I mentioned, notice is optional (at least in Can and USA) - and >> one would have to proof the date of creation if challenged. >> >> *>I question whether it's worth adding this overhead to every request* >> . I think I'll just hard code it, as I hope to have a very busy site >> someday. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> > >
--
