From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23954 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 09:32:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 23943 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2012 09:32:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,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; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:32:42 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3I9WfKA008302 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:32:41 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3I9Wd0d009589; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:32:40 -0400 Message-ID: <4F8E8A37.6070900@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:43:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergio Durigan Junior CC: Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Create cleanups.[ch] References: <4F8BF983.2090204@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00552.txt.bz2 On 04/16/2012 07:50 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > On Monday, April 16 2012, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> On 04/16/2012 06:00 AM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >>> It should be: >> >>> >>> Copyright (C) 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >>> >>> AFAIK, since it's a new file. >> >> >> But the contents are not new. By that reasoning, if we renamed >> every file in the tree, while changing nothing else, all the copyright >> years would end up 2012 only. I don't think that'd be right. > > I always thought that the Copyright referred to the file itself, so if > you create a new file you should "restart" the Copyright notice even if > this file doesn't contain new things. After all, if you moved things > around, they were already covered by the copyright of the file which > they belonged before. But then if you follow that patch one extra step, you can rename the files back to their original names, and what you end up with is exactly with you started with, except you've lost all your copyright years. If that's okay, then I've just proven that a copyright year list is insignificant and unnecessary, and we can just go do a wholesale pass on the whole codebase replacing all the multiple years by a single "2012" year. > Anyway, I'm not an expert, so thanks for clarifying. I'm not an expert either. Better ask the FSF indeed. But please do raise my point above with them. -- Pedro Alves