From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9286 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2012 05:48:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 9273 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jan 2012 05:48:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:47:47 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2E52BB466 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:47:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id O66sy3+vaUUs for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:47:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 979112BB464 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:47:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4C0DD145615; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:47:38 +0400 (RET) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:23:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: one more question about year ranges in copyright notices... Message-ID: <20120127054738.GA28443@adacore.com> References: <20120104094649.GV2730@adacore.com> <20120106062310.GH2730@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120106062310.GH2730@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00937.txt.bz2 Hello again, > Thanks a lot to all of you who answered. Very helpful. As usual > when it comes to legal matters, I did not have a clear understanding > of the all the ramifications. I have therefore sent the question > to the FSF copyright clerk email address. > > One small clarification: The proposed change will simply shrink > the copyright years into a single range, but it will not change > the initial year recorded in each file. If that initial year is > mistaken (in either direction), fixing that would need to be done > on an individual basis after review. I just got an answer from the FSF (case [gnu.org #719834]), and it is fine to shrink the copyright year list into a single range, even if there are "holes" in the original year list. I will put this on my list of things to do sometime next month (which ironically is in a few days - where does time go?). -- Joel