Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-avalon-dev-archive@avalon.apache.org Received: (qmail 63074 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2003 14:20:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@avalon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Avalon Developers List" Reply-To: "Avalon Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@avalon.apache.org Received: (qmail 63031 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2003 14:20:36 -0000 Received: from fep02.tuttopmi.it (HELO fep02-svc.flexmail.it) (212.131.248.101) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2003 14:20:36 -0000 Received: from apache.org ([80.204.154.181]) by fep02-svc.flexmail.it (InterMail vM.5.01.05.09 201-253-122-126-109-20020611) with ESMTP id <20030319142054.DEZX22849.fep02-svc.flexmail.it@apache.org> for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:20:54 +0100 Message-ID: <3E787CA5.20704@apache.org> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:20:21 +0100 From: Nicola Ken Barozzi Reply-To: nicolaken@apache.org Organization: Apache Software Foundation User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avalon Developers List Subject: Re: todo list References: <3E6E1399.5020405@apache.org> <200303151206.04672.peter@realityforge.org> <1047772643.3e73bde39d875@webmail.utwente.nl> <200303192331.22415.peter@realityforge.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Leo Simons wrote, On 19/03/2003 14.53: ... >> So if it was created in 2000 and edited in all years since it would be >> 2000-2003, if it was edited in 2000 and again this year it would be >> 2000,2003 or various other combinations (ie 2000-2001,2003). > > We talked about this on the PMC list recently (or was it here?). The > resolution was that it is not terribly important from a legal POV to > update this copyright information very exactly. If something is marked > as copyrighted in 2000, it will remain copyrighted for the next 50 years > or so (forgot the exact number); not renewing the copyright claim simply > means that after that time the copyright becomes non-enforcable. > > In short, yes, we should update this, but the license is not invalid if > the copyright date is a bit "stale". Actually, a file's copyright should really be updated only when really modifying it, not in bulk. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org