From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14133 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2012 17:17:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 13989 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jan 2012 17:17:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:17:08 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1RiUSZ-0006i2-I9 from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:17:07 -0800 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk ([172.16.63.104]) by EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:17:05 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.74) (envelope-from ) id 1RiUSW-0002pF-RX; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:17:04 +0000 Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:17:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Pedro Alves cc: Stan Shebs , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: one more question about year ranges in copyright notices... In-Reply-To: <4F048475.8090303@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20120104094649.GV2730@adacore.com> <4F047C06.8030000@earthlink.net> <4F048475.8090303@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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/msg00157.txt.bz2 On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Pedro Alves wrote: > That said, it may be worth asking the FSF. Yes, that may make sense. The rule for including intermediate years (before the rule that you can just add the new year to every file) used to be that the years to list were when a version, later released, was completed. It then changed to explain that you should add the new year - on the presumption that you have public version control so that every intermediate version is released, and with the rule that you only need to track when changes to the whole package were made, not individual files. Since GDB's version control history does not include the real history for older years - just imported snapshots / releases - it should probably be checked that there were indeed released versions of GDB that were completed in each year before 1999 that we wish to include implicitly in the simplified ranges. And it probably is worth checking with the FSF that using -2012 is correct in that case, and for what should be (my guess is that it's the first year in which a released version of GDB included any copyrightable content from which the file was derived, but maybe it will be OK just to put the first year for GDB everywhere). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com