Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>
>>Isn't "1999-2005" enough?
>>
>>
>>
>Well, actually yes, and to be honest "1999" is wrong anyway as the code
>has been written later...but I don't want to touch the "old values", I'm
>just adding the year of the latest change (which is actually not really
>required).
>Most of our copyright definitions are totally wrong, as mostly they were
>just copy/pasted from some other source :(
>
>Carsten
>
>
I've mentioned this before, but the copyright only needs to be the first
year (i.e. the year the work was created). We don't have to keep
updating them. In fact, I mentioned this to Carsten at the GetTogther
and he was quite aware of it. I guess you just like doing it!
Ralph
|