svn commit: r232065 - head/sys/dev/fb

[Jung-uk Kim]

On Thursday 23 February 2012 07:24 pm, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 02/23/2012 16:17, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > I remember there were some discussions in developers@ that
> > "2009-2012" is more appropriate than "2009, 2010, 2012" or
> > "2009-2010, 2012", if my memory serves.  Anyone?
>
> "2009, 2010, 2012" is as synonym for "2009-2010, 2012" and I see it
> both ways. That's not the issue. (However, if it were 2008-2010
> that is generally preferred vs. listing all 3 years individually.)
>
> The issue is that it's a basic tenet of copyright law that you
> cannot claim copyright in a year that you didn't actually make any
> changes. This makes sense if you think about it ... your rights
> from the last year you changed something don't expire at the end of
> that year, and if you didn't make changes in 2011 you don't have
> any new material that needs protection.

I am not a lawyer but I do know the date is optional, at least in the 
US.  I just googled a bit.  Some people say "first-last" form is 
fine.  Some say otherwise.  Also, it seems it depends on where they 
live.  Is there any authoritative answer from the Foundation, I 
wonder?

> For instance:
>
> Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993,
> 1994 The Regents of the University of California.  All rights
> reserved.

Yeah, I know that example very well.  I've seen that copyright notice 
for two decades or so. :-)

Jung-uk Kim