From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26113 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2012 20:56:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 26105 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jan 2012 20:56:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:56:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0UKu8Xn010179 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:56:08 -0500 Received: from mesquite.lan (ovpn-113-83.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.83]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0UKu6Do032452 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:56:07 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:44:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Add support for the Renesas rl78 architecture Message-ID: <20120130135605.76db03ac@mesquite.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120127053431.GX31383@adacore.com> References: <20120125165800.5351c291@mesquite.lan> <20120126170214.3a99b42f@mesquite.lan> <20120127053431.GX31383@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg01002.txt.bz2 On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:34:31 +0400 Joel Brobecker wrote: > > With regard to copyright years, I made sure that each new file lists > > both 2011 and 2012. As stated earlier, versions of these files were > > released to our customer in 2011. > > You could ask the FSF (email copyright-cleark - using fsf dot org > as the domain), and the answer would be interesting to everyone. > It would give us a better understanding of what the important factor > is. Is it the time of first writing, time of first release (define > release). Making changes seem to be the important factor, at least > as far as adding copyright years is concerned. I did as you suggested, asking the following question: I'm contributing some work to GDB which entailed adding some new files. The work was performed last year (2011) and was released to a customer last year as well. When we did that release to our customer, the standard GPL copyright was included at the top of each new file with 2011 listed as the year. Now that the file is being added to (upstream) GDB, the question has come up as to whether 2011 should be listed in addition to 2012. My feeling is that it should, but it was suggested that I ask you for guidance. The response that I received from Donald R Robertson III is as follows: In general, a work receives copyright protection from the time it is fixed in a tangible medium of expression (e.g. saved on a hard drive), and later additions receive protection when they are are created as well. So the notice would generally read "Copyright 2011-2012" if the work had been modified in both years, even if it wasn't published or distributed until 2012. The better practice for large packages like GDB, however, is to add new years to all files in the package, even if that file wasn't modified in that year. So even if the file wasn't updated in 2012, the notice should list 2011-2012, and the same would be true for all the years thereafter. I will follow the above guidance and revise the dates in the copyright notice for the new files that I'm contributing to read "2011-2012". Kevin