tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1555177 - in /tomcat/taglibs: extended/trunk/ rdc/trunk/ rdc/trunk/taglibs-rdc-dist/ rdc/trunk/taglibs-rdc-examples/ rdc/trunk/taglibs-rdc/ site/ standard/trunk/ taglibs-parent/trunk/
Date Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:16:31 GMT
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Rainer Jung <>wrote:

> Hi Henri,
> On 11.01.2014 22:15, Henri Yandell wrote:
> > Shouldn't be changing the copyright date until we actually make a
> > copyrightable modification to that product.
> Not sure whether the "until we actually make a copyrightable
> modification" part is required. The various site pages about the NOTICE
> file don't clarify it. The best I could find was
> "The top of each NOTICE file should include the following text, suitably
> modified to reflect the product name and year(s) of distribution of the
> current and past versions of the product:".
> Then there's the legal issue (still open)
> in which you participated and finally a reference to
> Most of the discussion seems to be about using only one year or a range,
> and if only one year whether the first year or the current publication
> year. The legal texts cited do not contain the terminology "version" for
> software and thus it seems unclear how to apply them.
> Concerning the point in time when to adopt the year (if at all): I got
> the impression the whole discussion is only about a release. As long as
> the files are only in svn the correct copyright handling is not of big
> importance. Now if it is acceptable at the time of a release to use the
> copyright notice of the form FirstYear-CurrentYear, then I think it is
> fine and helpful to adjust the NOTICE line at the start of a year to
> prevent forgetting the adjustment at the time of release. That was my
> motivation.
> Of course in the light of LEGAL-51 it might be that the whole adjustment
> of Copyright year in unnecessary at all - but the issue is not finally
> decided - and it also might be that some future release does not contain
> any copyrightable change. I would prefer the risk of using the wrong
> (newer) copyright year in this very unlikely case instead of the risk of
> forgetting to update NOTICE during the release process. But that's of
> course a very personal view. Since I never contributed to taglibs I am
> very unfamiliar to the project specific policies and would be fine to
> revert if you would prefer that.

My main concern is it makes inactive codebases seem alive. ie) extended
looks as though there's been code change in the last 5 years instead of
only having had code in it in 2009. Similar with RDC.

Other than that, I think it's mainly pedantry :) 80 years is so far off
that I don't see anyone caring that the copyright to a piece of code here
just expired, especially given our licence. It also seems unlikely that
there would be any gain in having stated a copyright year as being later
than it was; again given our license.


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message