[patch/copyright] lib/java.exp: update copyright years

[patch/copyright] lib/java.exp: update copyright years

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

This patch adds the copyright year 2004 to java.exp.
The file was modified this year.

Tested on native i686-pc-linux-gnu.

I am committing this now,

Michael C

===

2004-07-19  Michael Chastain  <mec.gnu@mindspring.com>

	* lib/java.exp: Update copyright notice.

Index: lib/java.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/lib/java.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -c -3 -p -r1.3 java.exp
*** lib/java.exp	17 Jul 2004 02:03:00 -0000	1.3
--- lib/java.exp	19 Jul 2004 21:22:50 -0000
***************
*** 1,6 ****
  # This test code is part of GDB, the GNU debugger.
  
! # Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
  
  # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
  # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
--- 1,7 ----
  # This test code is part of GDB, the GNU debugger.
  
! # Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2004
! # Free Software Foundation, Inc.
  
  # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
  # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by

Re: [patch/copyright] lib/java.exp: update copyright years

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) writes:

> This patch adds the copyright year 2004 to java.exp.
> The file was modified this year.
> Tested on native i686-pc-linux-gnu.
> [...]
> 	* lib/java.exp: Update copyright notice.
> [...]

I am surprised to see how much effort is being expended on this, and
how tiringly verbose it is.  This is like putting a long-winded
ChangeLog message together for every spelling correction in a comment,
then posting the patch, then discussing it for a while to debate
English versus American spellings.  Process rigidity run amok!

 
- FChE

Re: [patch/copyright] lib/java.exp: update copyright years

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
> Date: 20 Jul 2004 17:22:02 -0400
> 
> I am surprised to see how much effort is being expended on this, and
> how tiringly verbose it is.  This is like putting a long-winded
> ChangeLog message together for every spelling correction in a comment,
> then posting the patch, then discussing it for a while to debate
> English versus American spellings.  Process rigidity run amok!

I'd suggest to think again.  As paranoiac as this looks at first
glance, if the Linux kernel developers did something remotely
paranoiac since day one, they wouldn't be facing the ridiculous SCO/MS
lawsuits these days.  They seem to understand this now (contributors
are nowadays required to sign papers), but it's too late.

Re: [patch/copyright] lib/java.exp: update copyright years

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 984 bytes --]

Hi -


On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:19:52AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> [...]
> I'd suggest to think again.  As paranoiac as this looks at first
> glance, if the Linux kernel developers did something remotely
> paranoiac since day one, they wouldn't be facing the ridiculous SCO/MS
> lawsuits these days.  

I know you're being serious, but this seems to lack all sense of
proportion.  If you want to tag an FSF copyright on every little scrap of
text, go right ahead.  But why do experienced technical people believe
that adding or modifying comments like this, or reindenting a piece of
a file, should reasonably require all this mass of communication and
formality and process?  It doesn't make the work somehow more significant
in the grand scheme of things, only more tedious to filter out.


> They seem to understand this now (contributors are nowadays required
> to sign papers), [...]

I believe you misunderstand the new proposed process.


- FChE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [patch/copyright] lib/java.exp: update copyright years

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:53:37 -0400
> From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>
> 
> I know you're being serious

Dead serious.

> But why do experienced technical people believe that adding or
> modifying comments like this, or reindenting a piece of a file,
> should reasonably require all this mass of communication and
> formality and process?

Because people involved want to understand the issues, and I
personally find that a very reasonable attitude.

> > They seem to understand this now (contributors are nowadays required
> > to sign papers), [...]
> 
> I believe you misunderstand the new proposed process.

Then perhaps we will see more lawsuits in the future.

Re: [patch/copyright] lib/java.exp: update copyright years

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

eliz wrote:

> > But why do experienced technical people believe that adding or
> > modifying comments like this, or reindenting a piece of a file,
> > should reasonably require all this mass of communication and
> > formality and process?
> 
> Because people involved want to understand the issues, and I
> personally find that a very reasonable attitude.
> [...]

Well, the way things are going, those "involved" people will
"understand the issues" (whatever that means) over and over and over
and over and over and over and over with the formal process busywork.


- FChE