Re: [RFA] Correct machine name in config/m68k/tm-nbsd.h

Re: [RFA] Correct machine name in config/m68k/tm-nbsd.h

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 12:42:42 +0200
> From: Pierre Muller <muller@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr>
> >
> >FYI, the guidelines for such decisions are in standards.texi (IIRC).
> Sorry, but I went trough (quickly)
> but didn't find anything about
> years for copyrights.

Sorry, my memory betrayed me: the guidelines I had in mind are in
maintain.texi, not in standards.texi.  (You can download maintain.texi
from the GNU FTP site, if you don't have it.)  Look for a node
"Copyright Notices" in that manual.

Re: [RFA] Correct machine name in config/m68k/tm-nbsd.h

[muller]

At 21:18 25/04/02 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 12:42:42 +0200
>> From: Pierre Muller <muller@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr>
>> >
>> >FYI, the guidelines for such decisions are in standards.texi (IIRC).
>> Sorry, but I went trough (quickly)
>> but didn't find anything about
>> years for copyrights.
>
>Sorry, my memory betrayed me: the guidelines I had in mind are in
>maintain.texi, not in standards.texi.  (You can download maintain.texi
>from the GNU FTP site, if you don't have it.)  Look for a node
>"Copyright Notices" in that manual.

Extracted from this file:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The list of year numbers should include each year in which you finished
preparing a version which was actually released, and which was an
ancestor of the current version.

Please reread the paragraph above, slowly and carefully.  It is
important to understand that rule precisely, much as you would
understand a complicated C statement in order to hand-simulate it.

This list is _not_ a list of years in which versions were _released_.
It is a list of years in which versions, later released, were
_completed_.  So if you finish a version on Dec 31, 1994 and release it
on Jan 1, 1995, this version requires the inclusion of 1994, but
doesn't require the inclusion of 1995.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


After rereading, I understand that we should only add a year number
each time we release a version we should update the copyright
notice with the year corresponding to the last commit before
the release....

Shouldn't this be done automatically by some script??
Anyhow, as I understand this, I will not add 2002 to the year list,
as it might well be that we only release GDB 6.0 next year,
so if we add some other change in early 2003, that 2002
should not be in the list according to that rule!

But maybe I didn't reread it slowly enough....

Re: [RFA] Correct machine name in config/m68k/tm-nbsd.h

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 12:24:06AM +0200, muller@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr wrote:
> At 21:18 25/04/02 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 12:42:42 +0200
> >> From: Pierre Muller <muller@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr>
> >> >
> >> >FYI, the guidelines for such decisions are in standards.texi (IIRC).
> >> Sorry, but I went trough (quickly)
> >> but didn't find anything about
> >> years for copyrights.
> >
> >Sorry, my memory betrayed me: the guidelines I had in mind are in
> >maintain.texi, not in standards.texi.  (You can download maintain.texi
> >from the GNU FTP site, if you don't have it.)  Look for a node
> >"Copyright Notices" in that manual.
> 
> Extracted from this file:
> 
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> The list of year numbers should include each year in which you finished
> preparing a version which was actually released, and which was an
> ancestor of the current version.
> 
> Please reread the paragraph above, slowly and carefully.  It is
> important to understand that rule precisely, much as you would
> understand a complicated C statement in order to hand-simulate it.
> 
> This list is _not_ a list of years in which versions were _released_.
> It is a list of years in which versions, later released, were
> _completed_.  So if you finish a version on Dec 31, 1994 and release it
> on Jan 1, 1995, this version requires the inclusion of 1994, but
> doesn't require the inclusion of 1995.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> 
> 
> After rereading, I understand that we should only add a year number
> each time we release a version we should update the copyright
> notice with the year corresponding to the last commit before
> the release....
> 
> Shouldn't this be done automatically by some script??
> Anyhow, as I understand this, I will not add 2002 to the year list,
> as it might well be that we only release GDB 6.0 next year,
> so if we add some other change in early 2003, that 2002
> should not be in the list according to that rule!
> 
> But maybe I didn't reread it slowly enough....

I believe that "made available in a public CVS" counts as "released"
for these purposes.  That's how projects seem to manage it, at least.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: [RFA] Correct machine name in config/m68k/tm-nbsd.h

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:07:15 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
> 
> I believe that "made available in a public CVS" counts as "released"
> for these purposes.

No, it doesn't.  A release is what we all know it to be: a tarball on
ftp.gnu.org, with an appropriate announcement on related news groups.

Re: [RFA] Correct machine name in config/m68k/tm-nbsd.h

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 07:51:38PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:07:15 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
> > 
> > I believe that "made available in a public CVS" counts as "released"
> > for these purposes.
> 
> No, it doesn't.  A release is what we all know it to be: a tarball on
> ftp.gnu.org, with an appropriate announcement on related news groups.

Really?  In that case, is there any harm in adding extra years -
if there were it would seem like not releasing in a given year could
have all sorts of legal tangles for all added copyright dates.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: [RFA] Correct machine name in config/m68k/tm-nbsd.h

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:00:57 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
> > 
> > A release is what we all know it to be: a tarball on
> > ftp.gnu.org, with an appropriate announcement on related news groups.
> 
> Really?  In that case, is there any harm in adding extra years

I don't think it'd do any harm.  But it does mean, AFAIK, that adding
another year just because of a typo fix is not necessary.

Re: [RFA] Correct machine name in config/m68k/tm-nbsd.h

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 09:49:56PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:00:57 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
> > > 
> > > A release is what we all know it to be: a tarball on
> > > ftp.gnu.org, with an appropriate announcement on related news groups.
> > 
> > Really?  In that case, is there any harm in adding extra years
> 
> I don't think it'd do any harm.  But it does mean, AFAIK, that adding
> another year just because of a typo fix is not necessary.

Unless we plan to have a release in that year, it seems to me.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: [RFA] Correct machine name in config/m68k/tm-nbsd.h

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:25:41 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
> > 
> > But it does mean, AFAIK, that adding
> > another year just because of a typo fix is not necessary.
> 
> Unless we plan to have a release in that year, it seems to me.

Fixing a typo doesn't sound to me as ``working'' on a file.  YMMV.